Legal Opinion

Tucker v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1965No. 37632Published

1DissentHill, J.

(dissenting) — I dissent because I do not believe that there is substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff “was involved in an accident,” and would therefore direct a dismissal.

This was an action to recover disability payments provided by an accident insurance policy.

To recover, the plaintiff had to prove that his disability was caused by an accident.

The trial court found,

That said policy was in full force and effect on March 21, 1962. That on said date plaintiff was involved in an accident and sustained an injury to his back which caused losses as referred…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Horsfall v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Evans v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Johnson v. Business Men's Assurance Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1951
  5. McMahan v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1949

3 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