Legal Opinion

Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National Insurance

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1934PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The policy of insurance which the plaintiff is seeking to enforce against the defendant contains the following provisions:

“Confining Illness Indemnity Payable for Life(1) The company will pay * * * for disability resulting from diseases, * * " and which confines the Insured continuously within doors and requires regular visits therein by a legally qualified physician; provided said disease necessitates total disability and total loss of time.

Non Confining Illness(2) The company will pay * * * at the rate per month of one-half of the monthly illness indemnity hereinafter specified, but not…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway EmployeesOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Rocci v. Massachusetts Accident Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Reeves v. Midland Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
  4. State Ex Rel. Commonwealth Casualty Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
  5. Sheets v. Farmers & Merchants Mutual Life & Casualty Ass'nSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Medford v. Pacific National Fire InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Schweigert v. Beneficial Standard Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. MacKubin v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
  4. Adair v. McAteeOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Wade v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1934

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API