Legal Opinion

Gorham v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 14, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It is admitted that the policy in suit was in full force and effect on the date of the death of the insured. Recovery is resisted on two grounds: First, suicide; second, failure to give immediate notice of insured’s death and furnish proof of loss within ninety days thereafter.

First. It was the opinion of the trial court, concurred in by counsel on both sides at the time, that the evidence of violent death, without more, was sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of accidental death or death through accidental means within the meaning of the policy. Parker v. Ins. Co., 188 N.…

2Cases cited65 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co. of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
  3. Watkins v. Prudential InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Weil v. . HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gorham v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  2. Stout v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1962
  3. Felts v. Shenandoah Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Commercial Carving Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1961
  5. Muncie v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

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