Sump v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1970
• Docket Number: Docket No. 6645,No. 2,2
• Citation: Sump v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 175 N.W.2d 44, 21 Mich.App. 160 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Parties: Sidney Goodwin SUMP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 44

175 N.W.2d 44

21 Mich.App. 160

Sidney Goodwin SUMP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 6645.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Jan. 27, 1970.

Released for Publication March 20, 1970.

John D. Peacock, Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt & Peacock, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Robert M. Fraser, St. Clair Shores, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and McGREGOR and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Macomb county circuit court, which allowed recovery on the dismemberment clause of an accidental death and injury, nonrenewable, 5-day term insurance policy, issued November 14, 1963, to the plaintiff. On November 15, 1963, the plaintiff suffered an injury to his left eye while chopping sticks for a deer-hunting campfire. Plaintiff's doctor indicated in his reports, which were admitted into evidence, that there was a visual reduction in the left eye, which was correctable to 20/200. Counsel for plaintiff contends that this represents an 80% Sight loss. The report of another doctor, also admitted into evidence, states that the 'patient (plaintiff) is at present able to obtain a vision of about 75% Of normal. * * *' It was established that there was a scar of the cornea and a traumatic cataract present, and a partial dislocation of the lens of the left eye.

The question of law presented to the trial court was the interpretation of the term in the insurance policy which provided that $5,000 would be paid 'for loss of * * * (the) sight of one eye.' The policy definition provides that 'loss' means the 'irrecoverable loss of the entire sight. * * *'

The trial court found that the plaintiff's injured eye was inadequate for normal visual functions, and that such injury was included within the reasonable meaning of the policy requirements, and granted judgment to plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with the payment provisions of the insurance policy.

Defendant contends that plaintiff's loss does not come within the coverage of the policy, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not suffer the irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of the left eye. The policy defines eye loss to mean the 'irrecoverable loss of the entire sight' thereof. Defendant further contends that the plaintiff had correctable vision up to 75% Of his normal vision, according to one doctor, and to 20/200 according to another doctor; and that such sight loss does not fall within the policy terms.

The plaintiff contends that the proper reading and interpretation of the policy language would place the coverage upon the loss of useful sight, and that loss of sight in the literal sense of utter blindness is not necessary in order to recover under the policy. He further contends that the Federal government's formula for total blindness, as applied to the Federal Income Tax, states as follows:

'If the central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with corrective lenses, you are blind.' Publication No. 17, U.S. Treasury Department, Your Federal Income Tax, 1968 Edition.

'The entire sight is lost although it is not completely destroyed, if what sight is left is of no practical use or benefit.' Pan-American Life Insurance Co. v. Terrell (C.A. 5, 1928), 29 F.2d 460, 461.

This Court is asked to determine that 'useful sight' or 'practical use' is the test, rather than 'entire loss of sight.' Case law in Michigan does not disclose a definition of 'irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of the eye.' However, the courts on many occasions have spoken very definitely upon the language construction of insurance policies.

'In Kingsley v....