Hill v. Central Accident Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 132, on verdict for. plaintiff in case of G. M. Hill, Administrator of Alfred T. Seitz, v. Central Accident Insurance Company of Pittsburg. Assumpsit on a policy of accident insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 132, on verdict for. plaintiff in case of G. M. Hill, Administrator of Alfred T. Seitz, v. Central Accident Insurance Company of Pittsburg. Assumpsit on a policy of accident insurance. The facts appear by the opinion of Patton, P. J., on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which was as follows : On the trial of the case we affirmed all the defendant’s points except that under all the evidence in the case the verdict must be for the defendant, but we reserved the question whether or…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the court below on the motion to enter .judgment non obstante veredicto.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Watkins v. Prudential InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Neely v. Provident Life & Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Curran v. National Life Insurance Co. of the United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Globe Indemnity Co. v. ReinhartCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. RosierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.