Thull v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SHERICK, PJ.
It appeals to us that these two excerpts from the contract, are clear and unambiguous, and therefore need no construction of the simple and understandable language used therein.
We find that the policy contains a further provision in that “the employer may elect that all employees who, while insured hereunder, are temporarily laid off or given leave of absence, * * * shall be considered to be in the employment of the employer _ during such period,” but this is further made dependent upon the employer performing certain things, and upon certain conditions, which it is now conceded…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beecey v. Travelers InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Kowalski v. Aetna Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Chrosniak v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LembrightOhio Court of Appeals · 1928
3Cited by32 opinions
- Boseman v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Emerick v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Miller v. the Travelers Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- All States Life Ins. Co. v. TillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Shears v. All States Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1942
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.