Frink's Admr. v. Brotherhood Accident Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on an accident insurance policy. Pro forma judgment for the plaintiff for the principal sum named in the policy, on an agreed statement of facts, at the March Term, 1902, Washington County, Start, J., presiding. The defendant excepted. The words “cattle shipper and tender in transit” do not apply to the case of a man travelling with a horse. Brown v. Bailey, 4 Ala. 413; Hubotter v. State, 32 Tex. 479. Insurance contracts are construed against the company.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on an accident insurance policy. Pro forma judgment for the plaintiff for the principal sum named in the policy, on an agreed statement of facts, at the March Term, 1902, Washington County, Start, J., presiding. The defendant excepted. The words “cattle shipper and tender in transit” do not apply to the case of a man travelling with a horse. Brown v. Bailey, 4 Ala. 413; Hubotter v. State, 32 Tex. 479. Insurance contracts are construed against the company. Brink v. Insurance Co., 49 Vt. 442; Mosley v. Insurance Co., 55 Vt. 142. The trip with the horse did not amount to a change of…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The plaintiff’s intestate was insured as a barber proprietor, not working. The policy provided that if the holder should be fatally injured “while temporarily or otherwise engaged in or exposed to a hazard pertaining to an occupation or employment classed by the company as more hazardous” than that written upon the policy, the company’s liability should be only that “provided for the class in which such more hazardous occupation or exposure is rated in the manual of the company.” The occupation of “cattle shipper and tender in transit” is rated in the manual as more hazardous than that for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Billings v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898
- Decatur Bank v. St. Louis BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Enders v. McDonaldIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- Brown v. BaileySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
3Cited by4 opinions
- Miller Bros. Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Mochel v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Wilson v. Union Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Bell v. Erie RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918