United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood
Mississippi Supreme Court
On suggestion of error. Tlie provision in the policy covering the right of the company to have an autopsy performed is plain and unambiguous. The appellee seeks to avoid the forfeiture of her rights under the policy arising from a violation of this condition upon the sole ground that in order to avail itself of this right, the company must demand such autopsy prior to the burial of the deceased.
Read the full summary
On suggestion of error. Tlie provision in the policy covering the right of the company to have an autopsy performed is plain and unambiguous. The appellee seeks to avoid the forfeiture of her rights under the policy arising from a violation of this condition upon the sole ground that in order to avail itself of this right, the company must demand such autopsy prior to the burial of the deceased. We have been unable to find any case in the United States enunciating this novel doctrine. There are cases avoiding the condition for divers reasons therein set out. In Root v. London Phtctrcmty &…
1Opinion of the Court
Ethridge, J..,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The judgment in this case was affirmed on a former day without written opinion. 86 So, 814. A suggestion of error has been filed in which we are asked to write our views if we should adhere to the former opinion, but earnestly insisting" that we erred in the decision heretofore rendered.
The appellee was the plaintiff below and the appellant the defendant. The appellant issued an accident policy to Clifton R. Hood, the husband of the appellee, in which policy the appellee Avas named as a beneficiary. The policy agreed to pay her, in the event of…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Freeman v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Fetter v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Bohaker v. Travelers InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Rebecca Laughlin v. The Prudential Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Josephine Murray, in No. 96-5685 v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company American Home Assurance Company Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Legionnaire Insurance Trust Program Insurance Company of North America. Josephine Murray v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company American Home Assurance Company Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Legionnaire Insurance Trust Program Insurance Company of North America. Appeal of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, in No. 96-5747. Appeal of American Home Assurance Company, in No. 96-5748. Appeal of Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, in No. 96-5749Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. SchlatterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- Rinaldi v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.