National Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 11 June 1934
• Docket Number: 4-3486
• Citation: 72 S.W.2d 543,189 Ark. 377
• Parties: NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAMPTON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

72 S.W.2d 543

189 Ark. 377

NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAMPTON

4-3486

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 11, 1934

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; W. D. Davenport, Judge reversed.

Case reversed and dismissed.

Bevens & Mundt, for appellant.

Polk & Orr, for appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSON, C. J.

On August 1, 1932, appellant issued its policy of insurance to Arthur Hampton by the terms of which it agreed to pay Annis Hampton, beneficiary, in the event of the accidental death of the insured, $ 400 as follows:

"INDEMNITY FOR SPECIFIC LOSSES FROM ACCIDENTAL INJURIES.

"If due directly (and independently of all other causes) from a bodily injury, which is sustained while this policy is in force and which is effected accidentally and through external and violent means (excluding suicide, sane or insane, and injuries fatal or nonfatal, intentionally inflicted upon the insured by himself or by any other person except by burglars or robbers) the insured shall, within ninety days of the date of such injury suffer either of the losses below enumerated in schedule B, the company will pay the amount set opposite such specific loss in the schedule B referred to; such payment to be in addition to the weekly indemnity provided in schedule A for the period of total disability prior to the date of such specific loss.

"SCHEDULE B

"Accidental Loss of Life

The principal sum."

On February 11, 1933, the insured died, at which time the policy of insurance was in full force and effect.

Thereafter this suit was instituted by Annis Hampton, the designated beneficiary, against appellant, alleging the contract, its effectiveness at the time of the death of the insured by accidental means, and sought recovery of the sum of $ 400 together with penalty and attorney's fees.

The testimony, when viewed in the light most favorable to appellee and as stated by appellee in her brief filed herein was to the following effect:

"Now, analyzed as an intelligent chain of facts and circumstances, let us see if the appellee has presented facts and circumstances sufficient to meet the requirement of the law as expressed by this court regarding the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict. Appellee has shown that the insured was a well and able-bodied man of forty-six years of age; that he had been working continuously for some five or six weeks prior to the time of his fall and injury; that he was strong and well enough to roll six-hundred-pound bales of linters, with a co-worker, for ten hours a day, and this was testified to by Sol Brown, Annis Hampton, Hattie Gilstrap and the foreman, Mr. Ritchie; that, while in the act of rolling one of these bales, he unexpectedly stepped down into a hole some two or three feet, and, as a result of same, received an unexpected and severe jolt; that prior to that time he had not complained in any way of not feeling well, but a short time after the fall he complained of being sick and a little later in the afternoon of having a chill, which necessitated his quitting...