Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Riffel

The jury found that the plaintiff (appellee here) had been totally disabled within the meaning of a policy of insurance for the period in question, 1 and the court rendered judgment. Appellant insists (1) it should have had a directed verdict, (2) that the jury was erroneously instructed, (3) that conduct of opposing counsel was prejudicial, and (4) that improper argument was permitted.

First. — The policy does not compensate partial disability. Appellee, an attorney, testified he had been unable-to perform the material duties of his profession. The illness for which compensation is due must…