Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Hill
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
FOSTER, Justice.
This suit is for permanent disability benefits contained in a life insurance policy.
A proper construction of the policy sued on is the sole question counsel argued on this appeal. The facts material to that question ■were found for plaintiff, and they are not here controverted.
The premium was due and unpaid January 2, 1933, but there was a clause for thirty-one days of grace. Within that time, and while the policy was in force on account of the grace period, and on February ,1, 1933, he was injured by poison gas discharged from his car while it was running, and while he ■ was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. DorrietySupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Prudential Ins. Co. v. GraySupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
3Cited by9 opinions
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- All States Life Ins. Co. v. StewardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
- Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. LangfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
- Pearl Assur. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.