Union Cent. Life Ins. Co v. Bank
| Decision Date | 01 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 31435.,31435. |
| Citation | 41 S.E.2d 789 |
| Parties | UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. v. FULTON NAT. BANK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A policy of insurance which includes a liability exclusion clause to the effect that "Death is not a risk hereby assumed if it results directly or indirectly (a) from military or naval service in time of war or relief service in connection therewith, or (b) from service in or about or from travel or flight in amy species of aircraft; or from service in or about or from travel or descent in a submarine" is clear and not ambiguous. (Italics ours.)
2. The death of the plaintiff's testator was caused by a crash of a regular commercial aircraft in which he was riding as a fare paying passenger on a regularly scheduled airline run. The death here involved was not a risk of double indemnity assumed under the provisions of the policy stated in the preceding headnote. The court erred in holding to the contrary and in overruling the general demurrer of the defendant to the petition.
Error from Civil Court of Fulton County; Robert Carpenter, Judge.
Suit by the Fulton National Bank, as executor under the will of Alexander Stephens Clay, deceased, against Union Central Life Insurance Company to recover double indemnity under a life policy issued to plaintiff's testator. To review a judgment overruling defendant's demurrer to the petition, the defendant brings error.
Reversed.
The Fulton National Bank, as executor under the will of Alexander Stephens Clay, deceased, brought suit against the Union Central Life Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, in the Civil Court of Fulton County seeking to recover double indemnity under an insurance contract issued to the plaintiff's testator. The insured met his death in a crash of a regular commercial airplane in which he was riding as a fare-paying passenger on a regularly scheduled run. Defendant paid the face amount of the policy but declined to pay the double indemnity. The following clause in the policy related to double indemnity: "Death is not a risk hereby assumed if it results directly or indirectly (a) from military or naval service in time of war or relief service in connection therewith, or (b) from service in or about or from travel or flight in any species of aircraft; or from service in or about or from travel or descent in a submarine."
The lower court overruled the general demurrer of the defendant to the petition, and the defendant excepts.
Grover Middlebrooks and J. H. Currie, both of Alanta, for plaintiff in error.
Edwin L. Sterne, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. There is only one question presented for determination by this Court. That is, where an assured is a fare-paying passenger aboard a regularly scheduled airline passenger flight and meets death as a result of a crash of the aircraft into a mountain, is the beneficiary of the deceased precluded from recovering double indemnity because of the following clause in the contract of insurance: "Death is not a risk hereby assumed if it results directly or indirectly (a) from military or naval service in time of war or relief service in connection therewith, or (b) from service in or about or from travel or flight in any species of aircraft; or from service in or about or from travel or descent in a submarine." (Italics ours.)
The plaintiff admits that the above clause could be interpreted to mean that the defendant will not pay double indemnity if death results (1) from service in or about * * * any species or aircraft, or (2)
* * * from travel or flight in any species of aircraft; but the plaintiff insists that the clause is also subject to other interpretations. The plaintiff contends that the word "service, " which has an occupational significance, is tied in with "travel or flight, " and that the whole is tied together. It is contended that the words "in or about or from" all apply to the following words "travel or flight, " and that the words "travel or flight" are connected with "service" by three prepositions in the disjunctive, "in, " or "about, " or "from, " thus:
(1) Service in * * * travel or flight,
(2) Service * * * about * * * travel or flight, and (3) Service * * * from travel or flight. The plaintiff is of the opinion that service in travel or flight should cover such service as that of a pilot or stewardess which service is rendered while the plane is in flight; that service-about travel or flight refers to service connected with the travel or flight such as service in the preparation for the take-off, etc.; and that service from travel or flight refers to service resulting from the travel or flight such as filling the gas tanks during a stop-over preparatory to the next part of the flight. The plaintiff contends that it is not any service but only such service that has some connection with travel or flight; and that it is not any travel or flight but only such travel or flight that is connected in some way with service which will exclude recovery.
The plaintiff insists further that since the word "service" as used in para...
To continue reading
Request your trial