Yancey v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 33 S.E. 979,108 Ga. 349
• Parties: YANCEY v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 24 July 1899
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

33 S.E. 979

108 Ga. 349

YANCEY v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 24, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A person whose occupation is that of a traveling salesman for a coal company is not within the exception in a clause of a policy of accident insurance which provides that there shall be no recovery in case the insured is injured while "walking or being on any railroad bridge or roadbed (railway employés excepted)," merely because the duties of his occupation render it necessary that he should go upon the roadbeds of railroads. The proper construction of such a clause is that the insurance is suspended during the time that the insured is in the position above stated.

2. Nor will the fact that the insurance company insures railway employés at a higher rate permit a person insured as being engaged in another and less hazardous occupation, and who pays a lower rate of premium than persons classified as railway employés, to recover under a condition in the policy which provides that, "if the insured is injured in any occupation or exposure classed by this company as higher than the premium paid for this policy covers, the sum insured and weekly indemnity shall be only such amounts as said premium will purchase at the rate fixed for such increased hazard."

Error from city court of Atlanta; J. D. Berry, Judge.

Action by William E. Yancey against the Ætna Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Tompkins & Alston, for plaintiff in error.

Dorsey Brewster & Howell and Arthur Heyman, for defendant in error.

COBB J.

Yancey sued the Ætna Life Insurance Company upon a policy of accident insurance. At the trial it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff was a traveling salesman for a coal company, and was so insured, and that the rate of premium charged him was $5 per $1,000. It further appeared that he was injured by being struck by a train while he was approaching a station on the roadbed of a railroad company on his way from certain coal mines to take the train. He was between the rails when struck, in the station yard, where passengers generally stood to take the train at that station. The station could be approached from any direction, there being no inclosure, but the route the plaintiff took was the most direct route to reach the station in time to catch the train. It further appeared that the defendant company insured railway employés, and that the rate of premium charged them was higher than that charged persons in the class of the plaintiff. In defense to the action the insurance company contended that the plaintiff could not recover, because of a clause in his policy which is as follows: "(3) This insurance does not cover injuries *** resulting wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, from any of the following causes, or while so engaged or affected: *** Walking or being on any railroad bridge or roadbed (railway employés excepted.)" The plaintiff contended that he was within the exception mentioned in the clause quoted, and that, even if he was not, he should be allowed to recover under the fourth clause in his policy, which provides that, "if the insured is injured in any occupation or exposure classed by this company as higher than the premium paid for this policy covers, the sum insured and weekly indemnity shall be only such amounts as said premium will purchase at the rate fixed for such increased hazard." After hearing the evidence, the court granted a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted.

The plaintiff was insured as a traveling salesman for a coal company, and he was injured while between the tracks of a railroad company, on its roadbed. The policy distinctly provides that under such circumstances there shall be no liability on the part of the company to the insured, unless he was at the time a railroad employé. It is not pretended that the plaintiff was a railroad employé, in a strict sense that is, that he was, at the time he was injured, employed by a railroad company. It is, however, contended that as his position of traveling salesman required him to visit coal dealers, and be in and about railroad yards, in connection with the coal...