Sudduth v. Travelers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1901
• Citation: 106 F. 822
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky
• Parties: SUDDUTH v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

106 F. 822

SUDDUTH v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Kentucky.

March 11, 1901

Leopold & Pennebaker and Helm, Bruce & Helm, for plaintiff.

Pirtle & Trabue, for defendant.

EVANS District Judge.

This action was brought by the widow of W. A. Sudduth, deceased to recover upon two policies issued by the defendant, whereby it agreed to insure the deceased in the sum of $20,000 against loss 'through external, violent, and accidental means. ' By its answer the defendant seeks to avoid a recovery upon the grounds, stated generally, that it was not bound to pay the insurance, because the plaintiff had broken one of the essential conditions upon which it was made to depend by the express terms of the contracts. It is stated that each policy provided in the eighth clause or condition thereof 'that any medical adviser of the company shall be allowed, as often as he requires, to examine the 8 person or body of the assured in respect to the alleged injury or cause of death. ' It is also averred in the answer, in substance, that the defendant had no notice or knowledge of the death of the insured until after his burial, and that within a few days after the interment of the body of the insured the defendant demanded of the plaintiff, and of the executor of the deceased the privilege and opportunity of exhuming and examining the body, but that this demand was refused; and it is claimed that the defendant had the right to the opportunity to make such examination as was demanded, and that by refusing to permit it the plaintiff broke the conditions of the contracts, and defeated her right to recover upon the policies. In the second paragraph of the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's answer it is averred that the demand made upon the plaintiff was for her consent that the defendant might exhume and 'dissect' the body of the insured; in short, that the claim then made by the defendant was that it had the right to have an exhumation and 'autopsy' of the body after it had been buried. To this reply the defendant has demurred, and the only question to be determined is this: Did the defendant, upon the facts stated in the reply and under the eighth clause of the policies, have the right which it is there stated to have claimed? The answer to this question must depend upon the meaning of the eighth clause of the policies, the language of which has just been stated. The able and elaborate arguments of counsel have failed to develop very much direct authority upon either side of the contention, though several cases have been referred to, which, in a general way, have a more or less direct bearing upon it. One or two propositions however, may be regarded as established: First. The language of conditions in policies of insurance must be construed most strongly against the insurance companies, because it is to be regarded as much more the language of such companies than that of the insured. Second. The language of such contracts must be construed according to its ordinary and generally accepted...