Wheeler v. Fid. & Cas. Co. Of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 12 August 1907 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHEELER v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Insurance—Accident Policy—Action—Petition.
The petition sets forth no cause of action, and was properly dismissed on demurrer.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1164.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Geo. T. Cann, Judge.
Action by F. F. Wheeler against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Wheeler sued the Fidelity & Casualty Company, alleging, that the defendant was indebted to him in a stated sum on a policy of accident insurance. The policy insured the plaintiff against "disability or death resulting directly, and independently of all other causes, from bodily injuries sustained through external, violent, and accidental means (suicide, sane or insane, not included)." The policy, in different clauses, made stipulations in reference to the terms upon which the insured would or would not be entitled to indemnity; such clauses containing such expressions as: "If said injuries shall, " etc. The policy also contained the following clause: "In case a person other than the insured or his legal representatives is specifically named as beneficiary, then, and not otherwise, this policy shall also, in consideration of the premium, insure the person so named as beneficiary against disability or death, resulting directly, and independently of all other causes, from bodily injuries sus tained through external, violent, and accidental means (suicide, sane or insane, not included), and received by said person while riding as a passenger in or on a public conveyance propelled by steam, electricity, compressed air or cable, and provided for passenger service, including a passenger elevator." It was alleged that Lela Wheeler, wife of the plaintiff, was specifically named as the beneficiary in the policy, and that she died as the result of a gunshot wound accidentally inflicted. The shot that killed her was fired from a passing street passenger car, propelled by electricity. The conductor of the car got into an altercation with a passenger, and shot at the passenger in the car, and the bullet struck the plaintiff's wife while she was going up the front steps of her home on the street along which the car was passing. It was alleged that the soliciting agent of the defendant, at the time the policy was sold, represented that the plaintiff would be indemnified in the sum named in the policy in the event that his wife should die as the result of an external, violent, or accidental means, whether received on a car or otherwise; that the agent stated that it was a new form of insurance which furnished greater protection than any policy that had ever been issued; that this was an inducement held out to the plaintiff to take the policy. By amendment it was alleged that at the time the plaintiff paid the renewal premium the defendant was issuing two forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parris & Son, Inc. v. Campbell, s. 47512
...Cotton States Life Ins. Co., 43 Ga. 423; Fowler v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., 100 Ga. 330(1), 28 S.E. 398, supra; Wheeler v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 129 Ga. 237, 240, 58 S.E. 709; Athens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 132 Ga. 703(3), 64 S.E. 993; Peoples' Bank of Mansfield v. Insurance Co. of N.A., 146......
-
Carter v. Rary
...189 Ga. 79, 87, 5 S.E.2d 198, 125 A.L.R. 838; Yancey v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 108 Ga. 349, 351, 33 S.E. 979; Wheeler v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 129 Ga. 237, 240, 58 S.E. 709; Cato v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 164 Ga. 392, 398, 138 S.E. 787; Daniel v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 52 Ga. App.......
-
N.Y. Life Ins. Co v. Thompson, 22083.
...of the contract is possible, the court must expound it as made. Yancy v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 108 Ga. 349, 33 S. E. 979; Wheeler v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 129 Ga. 237, 58 S. B. 709. Total disability exists when one is wholly disabled from pursuing the usual and customary duties of his employm......
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Lipe, 42964
...and free of ambiguity. We can afford them no construction save that which they clearly import. Code Ann. § 56-2419; Wheeler v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 129 Ga. 237, 58 S.E. 709; Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. Hulsey, 220 Ga. 240, 138 S.E.2d 310; Maddox v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn., 79 Ga.App. ......