Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n of Omaha v. Bullard
Decision Date | 19 May 1960 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 868 |
Citation | 270 Ala. 558,120 So.2d 714 |
Parties | MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION OF OMAHA v. Henry BULLARD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jackson, Rives, Pettus & Peterson, Birmingham, for appellant.
C. L. Rowe, Elba, for appellee.
This is an action at law brought by appellee, plaintiff below, to recover benefits payable under an accident insurance policy issued by defendant to one Thomas L. Helms who was the employer of appellee at the time of his alleged injury. The policy 'insures each employee' of Helms and in pertinent part recites:
Class A
Number of Employees 15
Initial Premium $5.09
Renewal Premium $3.09
Death Benefit $1000.00
The Weekly Benefit $18.00
'........
The complaint, in two counts, one claiming for weekly benefits and the other for medical expense, as last amended, in pertinent part recites:
'Count 1.
'Plaintiff claims of the Defendant Six Hundred Thirty and NO/100 ($630.00) Dollars, with legal interest thereon, due on a policy whereby the Defendant insured each employee of Thomas L. Helms, * * * against loss of time sustained and commencing while the said policy is in force and effect and resulting directly and independently of all other causes, from accidental injury received while the said employee is actually engaged, in the place of business of the employer, in the performance of some duty pertaining to his occupation for which he is compensated by a wage paid by the employer. * * *
'And plaintiff says that he was such employee of said Thomas L. Helms, and that he suffered such accidental injury while the policy was in force and while he was actually engaged in the place of business of the said Thomas L. Helms, in the performance of duties pertaining to his occupation for which he was compensated by a wage paid by the said Thomas L. Helms, on, to-wit: the 24th day of September 1953, at * * *. That said injury consisted of strain of his back. That he returned to work for said employer on, to-wit: the 14th day of October 1953, and while so engaged in his said employment, at the time and place aforesaid, he again injured his back on, to-wit: the 20th day of October 1953. Plaintiff alleges that on each of said occasions he was working at rolling logs down to the sawmill carriage with a peavey, and on each occasion he undertook to turn a heavy log and in straining and tugging at the said log the said peavy slipped he injured his spine.
'Plaintiff further alleges that under part 'C' of the said policy it was provided that 'If the employee, because of such injuries which do not result in any of the specific losses specified in Part D, shall be wholly and continuously disabled and under the professional care and regular attendance, of a legally qualified physician, other than himself, the Association (defendant) will pay indemnity for one day or more * * * at the rate of $18.00 per week, during the period of total disability and total loss of time, but to exceed 250 weeks for any one accident'.
'And plaintiff alleges that he suffered accidental bodily injury, as aforesaid, and that for a period of 35 weeks, * * * he has been totally disabled and has suffered total loss of time, and has been under the professional care and regular attendance of a legally qualified physician, other than himself, for and on account of the said accidental bodily injury; and that his total disability and total loss of time continues beyond the date of the filing of this suit. Plaintiff says that Defendant has had notice thereof.
'Wherefore Plaintiff sues.
'Count 2.
'Plaintiff claims of the Defendant, Five Hundred and NO/100 ($500.00) Dollars, with legal interest thereon, due on a policy whereby the defendant insured each employee of Thomas L. Helms, Rt. 2, Brundidge, Alabama, against loss of time sustained and commencing while the said policy is in force and effect and resulting directly and independently of all other causes, from accidental injury received while the said employee is actually engaged, in the place of business of the employer, in the performance of some duty pertaining to his occupation for which he is compensated by a wage paid by the employer.
'And Plaintiff further alleges that attached to and made a part of said insurance policy is an 'Accident Expense Rider' whereby the Defendant agreed 'that if the insured sustains injuries, as described in the Insuring Clause, which injuries shall, within six months from the date of the accident, require medical or surgical treatment, confinement within a hospital or the employment of a trained nurse, the Association (Defendant) will pay the expense actually incurred for such treatment, hospital charges or nurse's fees, but not exceeding Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for any one accident'.
'And Plaintiff adopts and incorporates into this count of the complaint all of the allegations of the second paragraph of Count 1, hereinabove, as amended beginning with the words 'And Plaintiff says that he was such an employee of the said Thomas L. Holms, etc.' and ending with the words 'the injured his spine'.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas
...App.1919, holding approved); Anderson v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 203 A.2d 421 (D.C.App.1964); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Bullard, 270 Ala. 558, 120 So.2d 714 (1960); State ex rel. Duffey v. Western Auto Supply Co., 134 Ohio St . 163, 16 N.E.2d 256, 119 A.L.R. 1236 (1938)......
-
Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Milam & Co. Constr., Inc.
...against the promissor. Anderson v. Howard Hall Company, 278 Ala. 491, 179 So.2d 71 (1965); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association of Omaha v. Bullard, 270 Ala. 558, 120 So.2d 714 (1960); Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Sizemore, 258 Ala. 344, 62 So.2d 459 (1952); Employers Ins.......
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slifkin
...of his rights under a contract to which he was not a party has been upheld repeatedly. E. g., Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. of Omaha v. Bullard, 270 Ala. 558, 120 So.2d 714 (1960); Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Howard, 230 Ala. 666, 162 So. 683 When the face amount of the bailee's poli......
-
Industrial Development Bd. of Town of Section, Ala. v. Fuqua Industries, Inc.
...of evidence that Varco and the Boards did not intend in the legal sense to benefit Van Heusen. See Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Bullard, 1960, 270 Ala. 558, 120 So.2d 714, 723, where the court held that it is the intention of the parties disclosed by their writings and by the surro......