Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Smith

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1977PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HARBISON, Justice.

Respondents sued four life insurance companies seeking double indemnity benefits for the alleged accidental death of the insured, Dr. Doyle J. Smith. The ordinary life benefits under each policy have been paid.

Respondents demanded a jury, but at the conclusion of their evidence in chief, the trial judge directed a verdict for the insurance carriers. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, and this Court granted certiorari.

Although the Court of Appeals considered that legal questions were presented as to the interpretation of the policy provisions,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. FollettTennessee Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Provident Life & Accident Ins. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1934
  3. Reserve Life Insurance Company v. WhittemoreCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1969
  4. Gilmore v. Continental Casualty Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Britton v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1959

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Parker v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Arthurs v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
  3. Quintana v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1989
  4. Ann Arbor Trust Co. v. Canada Life Assurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
  5. Ann Arbor Trust Company v. The Canada Life Assurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987

2 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