Legal Opinion

John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Schroder.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 24, 1938No. 6 Div. 280PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNIGHT, Justice.

Suit by plaintiff upon an insurance contract, issued by the defendant, and insuring the plaintiff against total and permanent disability, which continuously and wholly prevents the plaintiff for life from engaging in any occupation or employment for wage or profit, and containing the provision that the entire and irrecoverable loss of the use of both feet would be considered as permanent total disability.

• It was admitted upon the trial of the cause that the plaintiff “is able to engage in a substantial occupation for which he is fitted, considering his education, experience…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Montgomery Enterprises v. Empire Theater Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  3. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. DorrietySupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  4. Capital Motor Lines v. GilletteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  5. Armour & Co. v. CartledgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. SaulSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  2. Bowler v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of NYSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  3. Kaufman v. Provident Life & Casualty InsuranceDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
  4. Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc. v. Nelson Realty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  5. Rodgers v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1939

8 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