Metsker v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
Decision Date | 06 March 1942 |
Docket Number | 28494. |
Citation | 12 Wn.2d 618,123 P.2d 347 |
Parties | METSKER v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by Elizabeth F. Metsker against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a corporation, upon an insurance contract. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; F. G. Remann, Judge.
Louis W. Dawson, of New York City, and Evans, McLaren & Lane, of Seattle, for appellant.
L. B Sulgrove, of Tacoma, for respondent.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover upon an insurance contract which provided monthly payments in the event of disability of the insured. The case, tried to a jury, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial were presented by defendant and denied by the trial court. Thereafter judgment was entered upon the verdict and defendant appealed.
The assignments of error are in the admission of evidence and in the refusal to grant the motion for a new trial.
The facts are these: During the year 1926 appellant issued to respondent a twenty-year endowment policy in the amount of five thousand dollars. The policy contained a provision that the company would pay to the insured certain monthly payments if she should become totally and permanently disabled Before reaching the age of sixty years. There was a further provision which waived premium payments in the event of disability.
The policy defined total and permanent disability as follows:
The only question for decision is, as stated by appellant, in a trial where the only issue Before the jury is whether or not an insured is totally and permanently disabled within the terms of an insurance contract, is it proper for the trial court to permit a doctor to answer over objection a question asking his opinion as to whether the insured could engage in any gainful occupation after he has testified in detail to the symptoms and physical and mental condition of the insured in a manner clearly stating the extent of the insured's disability?
In order to prove total and permanent disability, respondent called Doctors A. H. Buis and W. D. Read.
Dr. Buis testified that he had treated repondent since August, 1938. He stated that her symptoms were general tiredness, manifested in the morning on arising, mental sluggishness, poor memory, pains in her chest, swelling of her knees and feet, menstrual disturbance, and abnormal sleepiness. His physical examination revealed that she had low blood pressure, which resulted in an anemic condition; that her skin and hair were exceedingly dry and coarse; and that she had swelling around her ankles and eyes, which is called edema. He prescribed the taking of thyroid extract as the only treatment approved by the medical profession for people lacking in secretions of the thyroid gland. He further stated that the insured was among the small percentage of people who are affected with myxedema and who do not completely respond by taking the thyroid extract.
Other testimony of Dr. Buis was as follows:
* * *
* * *
'Mr. Lane: This is objected to on the ground that the witness is not qualified and calling for a conclusion, and is a question for the jury.
'The Court: From a medical standpoint I think he is entitled to give an answer.
'Mr. Lane: Same objection, not qualified on certain matters.
'Mr. Lane: Same objection, witness not qualified, and calling for a conclusion.
The testimony of Dr. Read concerning respondent's physical and mental condition was similar to that given by Dr. Buis. During the course of Dr. Read's examination, the following occurred:
'Mr. Lane: That is objected to as the witness is not qualified, and calls for a conclusion.
There is a marked conflict of authority upon the question presented in this case.
Appellant cites Johnson v. Caughren, 55 Wash. 125, 104 P. 170, 19 Ann.Cas. 1148; Hill v. Great Northern Life Ins. Co., 186 Wash. 167, 57 P.2d 405; Thomas v. Inland Motor Freight, 190 Wash. 428, 68 P.2d 603; and Warren v. Hynes, 4 Wash.2d 128, 102 P.2d 691, as indicative of the rule in this state.
In the first case the witnesses who were allowed to state their conclusions were fellow servants and not physicians, as were the doctors who testified in the instant case. The case is of no assistance because of that fact. A different rule should be applied when considering the opinion of experts.
In the second case [186 Wash. 167, 57 P.2d 409] we stated the general rule as follows: The facts and question presented in the last two cases and the facts and questions in the case at bar render those cases of no value in solving the problem presented here.
Another statement of the rule is contained in the following quotation from 29 Am.Jur. 1122, Insurance, § 1499: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Page v. Department of Labor and Industries
...of an expert's opinion or conclusion upon the ultimate issue to be decided by a jury. This court held (Metsker v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 12 Wash.2d 618, 123 P.2d 347) that a physician witness might express such an opinion, but the United States supreme court held (United States v. Spaulding,......
-
Lynch v. Republic Pub. Co.
...of such testimony that it touches an issue before the jury. VII Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.) 18, § 1921; Metsker v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 12 Wash.2d 618, 123 P.2d 347; Patrick v. Smith, 75 Wash. 407, 134 P. 1076, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., Opinion testimony is admissible to prove competency to hold an......
-
Stone v. City of Seattle, 36898
...may give their conclusions as to whether or not the plaintiff is able to follow a gainful work or occupation. Metsker v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 12 Wash.2d 618, 123 P.2d 347 (1942). In this case the doctor was qualified as an expert. He testified that the percentage of the plaintiff's disabil......