Reliance Insurance Company v. Kinman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Frank Holt, Justice.
Appellee suffered the loss of a foot in an accident. He was insured by the appellant to cover such a contingency. The appellant refused to pay the claim on the basis that appellee’s foot was not actually severed within the time limitation of 180 days. The trial court, sitting as a jury, found for the appellee and awarded $50,000, the full amount of the policy, plus a 12% statutory penalty, and an attorney’s fee. From that judgment comes this appeal.
For reversal the appellant contends that the “trial court erred in holding that the actual severance of appellee’s leg…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sneck v. Travellers' InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Moore v. Ætna Life InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Interstate Life & Accident Co. v. WatersMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
- Beber v. Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- Huff v. Vulcan Life and Accident Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- James B. Francis, Jr. v. Ina Life Insurance Company of New York, a Cigna Company, A/K/A LiconyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Neer v. Fireman's Fund American Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1985
- James J. Reid v. Life Insurance Company of North America, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- Sitzman v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Strickland v. Gulf Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.