Legal Opinion
Frank Jameson and Hazel Jameson Cole v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 31, 1969No. 27320_1PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CARSWELL, Circuit Judge:
Prone as the law is to see that full insurance benefits are paid to beneficiaries without much tolerance for quibbling over the syntax of exclusionary clauses, there are, nonetheless, instances where the insurers’ writers make their words so plain and their meaning so clear that a demand for double indemnity can be resisted. Such a case is this.
The subject life insurance policies named the appellees as beneficiaries and provided for double indemnity for accidental death with certain express exclusions. The crucial words here are: “* * *, the Company does not assume…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1939
- Accident Insurance v. CrandalSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hemel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1947
- Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. ClemmerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
- Randle v. Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1910
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sims v. Clarendon National InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2004
- Florida Polk County v. Prison Health Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- First National Bank of Midland, Trustee v. Protective Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
- Ross Neely Systems, Inc. v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- Parfait v. Jahncke Service, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.