Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 30025. |
| Citation | 26 S.E.2d 115,69 Ga.App. 459 |
| Parties | OVERSTREET v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1943.
Syllabus by the Court.
F C. Overstreet, as administrator of Willis B. Dorminey, sued the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on a policy of life insurance issued to the insured, to recover a double indemnity benefit alleged to have been due by reason of the alleged accidental death of the insured. The policy provided for such payment if the insured sustained bodily injuries The defendant denied that the insured was killed accidentally, and contended that his death was caused or contributed to, directly or indirectly, by disease or bodily or mental infirmity. The court directed a verdict for the insurance company and denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, to which judgment he excepted.
McDonald & McDonald, of Fitzgerald, for plaintiff in error.
FArkas & Burt, of Albany, for defendant in error.
The evidence showed that the insured fell as he walked up to a spooling machine in the Fitzgerald Cotton Mill, and as he was about to lay his hands on it. L.C. Walker testified that he saw the insured approach the machine; that he looked back and saw he was falling; that he didn't know how he came to fall; that when he fell his head struck an iron loom beam; that he fell about four feet before his head hit the beam; that the floor was not wet but it was oily around the machine because the machine was oiled two or three times a day; that he couldn't say whether the insured stumbled or what caused him to fall. The evidence showed that insured weighed about one hundred eighty pounds and was about forty-six years old. Those who testified stated that they knew him intimately and had never heard of his suffering from any organic or physical disease, and that he appeared to be a healthy, strong, and robust man.
If the death was contributed to or caused by disease or bodily infirmity the plaintiff was not entitled to recover....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterous v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co.
... ... Co., 180 S.W.2d 805; Dezell v ... Fidelity & Casualty Co., 176 Mo. 253; Crenshaw v ... Ins. Co., 71 Mo.App. 42; Hardie v. Metropolitan Life ... Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Brix v. Fidelity Co., ... 171 Mo.App. 518; 1 C.J., p. 479; 7 Couch on Ins., p. 5540, ... sec. 1573; Sturgis ... Travelers Ins. Co., 180 Cal. 326, 181 P. 61; ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 12 So.2d 374; ... Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 69 Ga.App ... 459, 26 S.E.2d 115; Police & Firemen's Assn. v ... Blunk, 107 Ind.App. 279, 20 N.E.2d 660; ... ...
-
Waterous v. Columbian National Life Ins. Co.
...v. Travelers Ins. Co., 180 Cal. 326, 181 Pac. 61; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 12 So. (2d) 374; Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 69 Ga. App. 459, 26 S.E. (2d) 115; Police & Firemen's Assn. v. Blunk, 107 Ind. App. 279, 20 N.E. (2d) 660; Michener v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.,......
-
McCarty v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 39629
...evidence might reasonably establish. Thus, it would be proper for the court to charge the jury, as stated in Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 69 Ga.App. 459, 26 S.E.2d 115, that 'Where circumstantial evidence equally supports two theories it proves neither.' The court, of course, c......
-
Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Fry
...possible under the exclusion clauses of the policies. Cook v. Life Insurance Company of Georgia, supra; Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 69 Ga.App. 459, 26 S.E.2d 115 (1943); Halligan v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 102 Ga.App. 905, 118 S.E. 2d 107 (1960). Appellants, while admi......