Md. Cas. Co. v. Hazen
Decision Date | 10 May 1938 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 28001 |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. HAZEN |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. INSURANCE - Death From Sunstroke Held to Be Within Terms of Accident Policy.
" * * *' Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Green, 172 Okla. 591, 46 P.2d 372.
2. SAME - Proof of Defense That Accident Was Contributed to by Disease or Infirmity.
In an action on an insurance contract, in order to sustain a defense that the accident was contributed to by disease or bodily or mental infirmity so as to prevent a recovery, the evidence must disclose that the disease or infirmity was so considerable or significant as to be characterized as disease or infirmity in the common speech of men.
Appeal from District Court, Kay County; Claude Duval, Judge.
Action by William H. (Pat) Hazen against the Maryland Casualty Company on an insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Clayton B. Pierce and Truman B. Rucker, for plaintiff in error.
H.R. Helmbrecht and J.F. Murray, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was commenced by the plaintiff to recover on an insurance policy issued by the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff, who was one of the employees of the city of Ponca City. At the time of the accident plaintiff was a policeman on the police force of said city, and while so employed suffered a sunstroke and as a result is totally and permanently disabled.
¶2 The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury within the meaning of the terms of the policy as announced by this court in adopting and approving the rule in Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Green, 172 Okla. 591, 46 P.2d 372.
¶3 We shall not discuss the evidence with relation to the sunstroke other than to state that it disclosed that the plaintiff sustained said accident while employed as a policeman while on the force of said city of Ponca City, and that the medical expert evidence is sufficient both to establish the accident and the resulting disability. In this connection, see Oklahoma Hospital v. Brown, 87 Okla. 46, 208 P. 785.
¶4 The view that a sunstroke is within the terms of such a policy as the one at bar is declared to be the majority view in the United States. See Richards v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. (Utah) 200 P. 1017, A. L. R. 1183, and note 1197, 90 A. L. R., note 1386.
¶5 A more interesting question is presented ably, and to some extent, based upon the terms of the policy which provided in part as follows:
"Maryland Casualty Company * * * does hereby insure employees of the police department * * * subject to the conditions, provisions and limitations herein contained, against bodily injury caused during the term of this policy, directly and exclusively of all other causes, by external, violent and accidental means as follows: * * *"
¶6 Other provisions are referred to, but in their nature and scope are controlled by the above set out provisions, and the discussions of the courts are with relation to what constitutes an accident exclusive of all other causes by external and violent means. The insurance contracts in Provident Life & Accident Co. v. Green, supra, and related cases discussed herein have a similar if not identical provision. It is urged that the court erred in refusing to sustain a demurrer to the evidence offered by the plaintiff and in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and these two alleged errors are based simply upon the position of the defendant that, since the chief medical witness for the plaintiff testified that in 1905 plaintiff had a head wound near the temple, and in 1931 the said medical expert witness advised the plaintiff to keep out of the sun, and while witness was mayor of said city he was given an employment where he did not have to do hard labor in the sun, that these two "conditions" contributed to the injury so as to preclude a recovery.
¶7 In adopting the rule announced in Provident Accident Life Insurance Co. v. Green, supra, this court quoted at length with approval from the dissenting opinion of Justice Cardozo in Landress v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 291 U.S. 491, 78 L Ed. 934, 54 Sup. Ct. 461, 90 A. L. R. 1382.
¶8 In the latter case Justice Cardozo stated:
¶9 In Silverstein v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 254 N.Y. 81, 171 N.E. 914, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zinn v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa
... ... 1270; Horton v ... Travelers Ins. Co., 45 Cal.App. 462, 187 P. 1070; ... Maryland Casualty Co. [6 Wn.2d 384] v. Hazen, 182 Okl. 623, ... 79 P.2d 577; Spence v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., ... 146 Kan. 216, 69 P.2d 713; Goethe v. New York Life Ins ... 344, 147 N.E. 533; Bryant v. Continental ... Casualty Co., 107 Tex. 582, 182 S.W. 673, ... L.R.A.1916E, 945, Ann.Cas.1918A 517; Lewis v. Ocean ... Accident & Guarantee Corp. [of London], 224 N.Y. 18, ... 120 N.E. 56, 7 A.L.R. 1129; Christ v ... ...
-
Raley v. Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tenn.
...N.E.2d 649, 36 A. L.R.2d 1084; Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Chapman, 1941, 189 Okl. 69, 113 P.2d 600; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hazen, 1938, 182 Okl. 623, 79 P.2d 577; Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Green, 1935, 172 Okl. 591, 46 P.2d 372; Goethe v. New York Life Ins. Co., 19......
-
Jacobson v. Mut. Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n
...contraction of typhoid fever (Gasperino v. Prudential Ins. Co., Mo.App., 107 S.W.2d 819, 823); from sunstroke (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hazen, 182 Okl. 623, 79 P.2d 577, 578;Goethe v. New York Life Ins. Co., 183 S.C. 199, 190 S.E. 451); and rupture caused by straining in vomiting (Ross v. I......
- Maryland Cas. Co. v. Hazen