Legal Opinion

National Accident & Health Ins v. Mergenov

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 6, 1935No. 2451PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By WASHBURN, J.

There can be no doubt that plaintiff’s condition was a “confining illness” within the meaning of schedule ‘H,” unless the fact that he was not visited in his house by a physician “at least once in each seven days” after the first three weeks of his illness requires a' contrary finding.

We are of the opinion that the situation shown by the facts in this case is not such as to require such contrary finding.

The important element of difference between the two schedules is that in “H” the insured’s illness is such that he is confined to the house, and in “I” he is not confined…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Federal Surety Co. v. WaiteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  2. Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Stewart v. Continental Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Paul v. National Accident SocietyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1928
  5. Fuzessery v. American Benefit Casualty InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1930

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. RamageCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943
  3. United Insurance Co. of America v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
  4. Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API