U.S. Health & Acc. Co. v. Veitch

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: MAYFIELD, J.
• Citation: 50 So. 95,161 Ala. 630
• Parties: UNITED STATES HEALTH & ACCIDENT CO. v. VEITCH.
• Decision Date: 10 June 1909

50 So. 95

161 Ala. 630

UNITED STATES HEALTH & ACCIDENT CO.
v.
VEITCH.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 10, 1909

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; Wm. Jackson, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Mary B. Veitch against the United States Health & Accident Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

G. F. Goodwyn, for appellant.

Bush & Bush, for appellee.

MAYFIELD, J.

The complaint was evidently intended to be in Code form, and declared upon a policy of life insurance (Code 1907, vol. 2, p. 1196, § 5382, form 12). It was as follows: "Complaint in the City Court of Bessemer. Mary B. Veitch, Plaintiff, v. United States Health & Accident Company, a Body Corporate, Defendant. The plaintiff claims of the defendant seven hundred dollars due on a policy, whereby the defendant on the 12th day of April, 1907, insured the life of Richard C. Veitch, who died on the 21st day of November, 1907, of which the defendant has had notice. Said policy is the property of the plaintiff. [ Signed] Bush & Bush, Attys. for Plaintiff."

The complaint was insufficient, in that it did not specify the time for which the life in question was insured, nor otherwise show that death resulted during the life of the policy. This much was necessary, because the Code form contains such allegations or averments. The complaint declares upon a policy [50 So. 96.] of life insurance, while the policy or contract of insurance introduced in evidence was not a life insurance policy at all. It was a "health and accident insurance policy," an entirely different contract from the one declared on; and, not being the contract declared on, it was, of course, not admissible in evidence. This being the only contract offered in evidence, the court should have given the affirmative charge for the defendant, and should have refused that given for plaintiff. It was by no means conclusively shown that the death of the insured was within the terms of the contract of accident insurance policy offered in evidence. By its terms it only insured against death or injury, when resulting from "external, violent, and accidental means." The evidence was not at all conclusive that the death was thus caused, or thus resulted.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

DOWDELL, C.J., and SIMPSON and DENSON, JJ., concur.