Weiss v. Union Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 83.,83. |
| Citation | 153 A. 508 |
| Parties | WEISS v. UNION INDEMNITY CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where an accident insurance policy provided that the beneficiary should receive the principal sum of the policy for death resulting from an accident, in one clause, and under another paragraph provided for the payment of "Double Indemnities" which should be twice the principal sum if death resulted from certain accidents, and in another paragraph provided, under the title of, "Special Indemnities," that in case the insured should die as a result of certain accidents happening thereunder the beneficiary would receive one-half of each of the indemnities provided in the policy, and the decedent died as a result of the inhalation of gas mentioned under the title of "Special Indemnities," held, that the beneficiary was entitled to not only the principal sum but also to one-half of the principal sum in addition thereto.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where two clauses in an accident insurance policy are so ambiguous as to allow of two constructions, they will be construed most strongly against the insurer.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Ray Weiss against the Union Indemnity Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
McDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City, for appellant.
Lichtenstein, Schwartz & Friedenberg, of Hoboken (David Friedenberg, of Hoboken, of counsel), for respondent.
This was an action at law brought by the respondent, Ray Weiss, against the appellant. Union Indemnity Company, on an accident insurance policy in the principal sum of $10,000 issued by the appellant company and naming the respondent, Ray Weiss, wife of the insured, as beneficiary. The. policy insured the deceased, the husband of the respondent, against the effects of bodily injuries in certain instances and death resulting therefrom. The respondent's husband died from the inhalation of poisonous gas. Under a stipulation, which was entered into between the parties to this suit, it was agreed: "That the only question in respect to the issues involved in the above matter which is to be submitted to the Court for its decision is that of the amount recoverable on the insurance policy which is the subject-matter of this suit, assuming that while the said policy was in full force and effect, the assured named therein sustained bodily injuries caused directly, solely and independently of all other causes by the involuntary, unconscious inhalation of gas, suffered through external, violent and accidental means, and within ninety days from the date of the accident alleged in the complaint filed herein, and that while the said policy was in full force and effect, the said assured died as the sole and exclusive result of such bodily injuries." The stipulation further provides that the defendant agrees to pay to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agrees to accept from the defendant, in settlement of all issues involved, a sum equivalent to one-half of the amount found by the court to be due, and that the plaintiff will accept at any time prior to the decision of the court the sum of $2,500 on account of whatever should be determined to be due to the plaintiff. It further provides that the matters and things contained therein "are solely for the purpose of the determination of the issues involved in this cause, and for no other purpose, and that neither party shalll pay, or be responsible to the other, for any costs whatsoever in this Court or the Court of Errors and Appeals."
The policy of insurance, after providing for the insurance of the decedent, in the principal sum of $10,000 in case of his death, contained a number of sections relating to what are called in the policy, "Accident Indemnities," and contains the following wording:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mancuso v. Rothenberg
...A. 1912); Kissinger v. North American Union Life Assur. Society, 108 N.J.L. 405, 158 A. 756 (E. & A. 1932); Weiss v. Union Indemnity Co., 107 N.J.L. 348, 153 A. 508 (E. & A. 1931). And if the policy contains inconsistent or conflicting provisions, the courts will give effect to the provisio......
-
Shapiro Bros. Factors Corp. v. Automobile Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 1427.
...Jasion v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 113 N.J.L. 108, 172 A. 367; Connell v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., supra.; Weiss v. Union Indemnity Ins. Co., 107 N.J.L. 348, 153 A. 508. The application of this fundamental principle in the instant case leads to the same result, and full force and effe......
-
Lower v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...v. Am. Casualty Co., 83 N. J. Law, 641, 85 A. 194, 196, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 70, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 846, and Weiss v. Union Indemnity Co., 107 N. J. Law, 348, 153 A. 508, 509, we held: "It is a familiar rule that the words used in a policy of insurance should be interpreted most strongly again......
-
Clark-McCaffrey Furniture & Supply Co. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, CLARK-M
...& A.1912); Kissinger v. North American Union Life Assur. Society, 108 N.J.L. 405, 158 A. 756 (E. & A.1932); Weiss v. Union Indemnity Co., 107 N.J.L. 348, 153 A. 508 (E. & A.1931). And if the policy contains inconsistent or conflicting provisions, the courts will give effect to the provision......