Legal Opinion

Bagnall v. Travelers Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 13, 1931No. Docket No. 7741PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

Plaintiff sought to recover the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled under the disability provisions of three life insurance policies. Upon a triál by the court sitting without a jury judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, from which judgment defendant appeals.

On July 19, 1926, plaintiff became totally disabled as the result of a disease known as hyper-thyroidism and remained so totally disabled from that date until February 14, 1927. Plaintiff returned to work on February 15th and was not totally disabled thereafter. The court found that “plaintiff became wholly disabled by a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. MiltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  2. Ginell v. . the Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. Ginell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  4. Hawkins v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  5. Shipp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. New England Mutual Life Insurance v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
  2. Dietlin v. Missouri State Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Job v. Equitable Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1933
  4. Peters v. Mutual Life InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Lando v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1935

1 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