Hodges v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n of Omaha
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of an insurance policy issued to Leon Wilbur Hodges, instituted this action to collect the amount mentioned in the policy. The case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence to justify a verdict by the jury and moved for a dismissal of the action. The motion was denied. ■ Defendant did not introduce evidence and the case was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant presented motions for judgment n. o. v., or, in the alternative, for a new trial.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Horsfall v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Zinn v. Equitable Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1940
- Kane v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1940
- Hill v. Great Northern Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1936
- Frandila v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1926
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- INA Life Insurance Company v. BrundinAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- Evans v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Johnson v. Business Men's Assurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1951
- Continental Insurance v. Paccar, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1980
- Grabau v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.