Pollock v. United States Mut. Accident Asso.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1883 |
| Citation | 102 Pa. 230 |
| Parties | Pollock <I>versus</I> United States Mutual Accident Association. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., PAXSON, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ. GORDON and TRUNKEY, JJ., absent
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1883, No. 118.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James W. Wilson (Edward J. Fox with him), for the plaintiff in error.—The condition relieving the company from liability for death caused "by the taking of poison" should not be construed to apply to accidental poisoning; "taking" means intentional taking. The case falls within the rule that "where an exception in a policy of insurance is capable of two interpretations, equally reasonable, that must be adopted which is most favorable to the insured, for the language is that of the insurer": Western Ins. Co. v. Cropper, 8 Cas. 351; Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Berger, 6 Wr. 285: Ins. Co. v. O'Maley, 1 Norris 400.
William S. Price (with him William Bro. Smith), for the defendant in error.
The defendant is a mutual insurance company. The losses are paid by assessment on its members. The object of the company is to insure against bodily injuries produced in a certain manner specified, that is, caused by external violent and accidental means. Not injuries caused by any one of these means, but by all of them combined. Hence the certificate of membership expressly declares the benefits shall not be held to extend to any case of death or personal injury unless the claimant shall establish by direct and positive proof that the death or personal injury "was caused by external violence and accidental means." To remove all doubt as to the liability of the association to the plaintiff in this case the certificate further declares the benefits under it shall not extend to any death or disability which may have been caused "by the taking of poison." It is not necessary that the poison be taken with an intent to produce death, in order to defeat a claim flowing from the right of membership. If the poison be innocently taken, and without any knowledge of the injurious effect which it was likely to produce, and did produce, so far as the person taking it is concerned, the effect may be said to be accidental. If we go a step further and admit in such case, that the "means" are accidental; yet it is one of the accidental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beckham v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...Life Ins. Co., 329 Pa. 158, 196 A. 491 (1938); Hesse v. Travelers Ins. Co., 299 Pa. 125, 149 A. 96 (1930); Pollock v. United States Mut. Acc. Ass'n, 102 Pa. 230 (1883); Zuliskey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 159 Pa.Super. 363, 48 A.2d 141 (1946); Semancik v. Continental Cas Co., 56 Pa.Super. 392 ......
-
Dixon v. Travelers Protective Ass'n of America
...liable for it, under its contract. [Cole v. Insurance Co., 61 Law T. (N. S.) 227; Early v. Insurance Co. (Mich.), 71 N.W. 500; Pollock v. Association, 102 Pa. 230; v. Association, 34 Wkly. Law Bul. 239, 44 N.E. 1130; Nibl., Ben. Soc. & Acc. Ins., sec. 393; Cooke, Life Ins., sec. 56.]" The r......
-
Republic Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hatcher
...1 Ann. Cas. 252; Early v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 113 Mich. 58, 71 N.W. 500, 67 Am. St. Rep. 445; Pollock v. U.S. Mutual Accident Assn., 102 Pa. 230, 48 Am. Rep. 204. In Hill v. Hartford Accident Ins. Co., 22 Hun. (N.Y.) 187, the argument for the appellant is aptly "But the case ......
-
Bloom v. Brotherhood Accident Co.
... ... 588, ... 53 S.W. 49; Horsfall v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., ... 32 Wash. 132, 72 P. 1028; AEtna Life ... 271, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657; ... Pollock v. United States Mutual Acc. Assn., 102 Pa ... 230; ... ...