Sauers v. Mutual Benefit Health Acc. Ass'n
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTolman, J.
This is an action on an accident and health insurance policy tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. From a judgment on the verdict, the defendant has appealed.
Several of the errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence, hence it will be necessary to mention, as briefly as may be, the facts as indicated' by substantial evidence upon which the verdict rests.
The respondent is a married man with children, and at the time of trial below was fifty-three years of age. He is not an educated man and had been employed as a driver of a laundry truck for many…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1897
- McMillen v. HillmanWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Rathbone, Sard & Co. v. FrostWashington Supreme Court · 1894
- Lilienthal v. HerrenWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Titan Truck Co. v. RichardsonWashington Supreme Court · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Corbaley v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1937
- Wiggins v. North Coast Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1940
- Cassels v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1938
- Myers v. WeyerhaeuserWashington Supreme Court · 1938
- Battee v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1950
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.