Releford v. Reserve Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. A-5084,A-5084 |
| Citation | 154 Tex. 228,276 S.W.2d 517 |
| Parties | Velma RELEFORD, as Next Friend to James Fay Releford and Mary Helen Releford, Minors, Petitioners, v. RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Harkness & Friedman, Texarkana, for petitioners.
Atchley, Vance & Hubbard, Texarkana, for respondent.
The petitioner, suing as next friend for her minor children, James Fay Releford and Mary Helen Releford, recovered a judgment against respondent for the sum of $760, that sum representing a $500 benefit under a provision in respondent's insurance policy insuring Floyd Releford, petitioner's husband, against loss of life 'resulting from accidental bodily injury', plus statutory penalty and attorney's fees. Floyd Releford was killed by petitioner, who was not named as a beneficiary in the policy, under circumstances detailed in an unpublished opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
Although the amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of the County Court, we take jurisdiction of the case because we have concluded that the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals is in conflict with the prior decision of this Court in Hutcherson v. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. 112 Tex. 551, 251 S.W. 491, the two decisions being "so far upon the same state of facts that the decision of one case is necessarily conclusive of the decision in the other." Dockum v. Mercury Ins. Co., 134 Tex. 437, 135 S.W.2d 700, 701.
In the Hutcherson case (112 Tex. 551, 251 S.W. 493) this Court said that whether 'the assured made an assault upon the beneficiary,' or whether 'his conduct toward the beneficiary at the time he was killed, coupled with his conduct just prior to such time, was such that he must have known, or at least must have anticipated, that by his conduct toward the beneficiary she would in all probability kill him' was a fact question. In this case the Court of Civil Appeals has held as a matter of law, and in the face of a contrary fact finding by the jury, that the assured was making an unlawful attack upon Velma Releford and has reversed the judgment of the trial court, based on the finding of the jury, and has rendered judgment for the respondent. In this we hold the Court of Civil Appeals erred.
In reaching its conclusion the Court seems to have given controlling weight to its finding that 'viewed from the standpoint of Velma Releford' the deceased was making an unlawful assault upon her and she was acting 'in her own self-defense.' As stated in the Hutcherson case, the test of whether the killing is accidental within the terms of an insurance policy is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Heyward
...effected solely through accidental means if it results from injuries intentionally inflicted by another. In Releford v. Reserve Life Insurance Co., 54 Tex. 228, 276 S.W.2d 517 (1955), insured died from injuries intentionally inflicted by his wife. Insured's policy provided indemnity against......
-
Vaughn v. Vaughn
...evidence the judgment must stand. To this authority there can be added a recent case of the Supreme Court of Texas, Releford v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 276 S.W.2d 517, 518, wherein the Supreme Court 'We note that the Court of Civil Appeals said in its opinion that 'the answer of the jury to ......
-
Bolstad v. Egleson
...it was not presented by the point. However, as we view the admonition set forth by the Supreme Court in Releford v. Reserve Life Insurance Co., 154 Tex. 228, 276 S.W.2d 517, 518, the fact reviewing prerogative of this Court shall not be exercised unless it is invoked by a proper point of er......
-
Lamb v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...and accidental within the terms of the insurance policy. Applications of that perception are found in Releford v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 154 Tex. 228, 276 S.W.2d 517 (1955) (a wife killed her husband in a domestic argument and the jury found as a fact that the husband's "conduct was not suc......