Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Plate Glass & Casualty Insurance v. Hawes' Extx.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 17, 1912PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Nunn —

Affirming.

Appellee’s intestate held an insurance policy in appellant company, which provided for weekly payments .in the event of sickness. He became sick, gave the required notice and made application for $10 a week for twenty weeks. The company refused to pay; and this action was instituted. Appellee’s intestate’s deposition was the only evidence introduced on the trial and the court found in appellee’s favor, the sum of $200.

There is only one question raised on this appeal, and that is, what meaning should be given to clause one of the policy? It is as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hohn v. Inter-State Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Bishop v. United States Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Great Eastern Casualty Co. v. RobinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  2. Bankson v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'nSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1945
  3. Fowler v. United Equitable InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
  4. Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. LewisAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951

13 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