Legal Opinion
Dunwoody v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 5, 1922No. Docket No. 56PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Wayne; Goff (John H.), J. Assumpsit by Sarah Dunwoody against the Royal Indemnity Company on a policy of insurance. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, C. J.
On January 24, 1916, defendant issued a policy of accident insurance to Dr. John F. Dunwoody of Detroit. Plaintiff was named as beneficiary. Attached to and made a part of the policy was the following rider:
“SEPTIC POISONING RIDER (a) Ño. 235.
Royal Indemnity Company.
“In consideration of an additional premium of $1.25 it is hereby understood and agreed that septic infection resulting from external inoculation through accidental contact with septic matter shall be regarded as an accidental bodily injury within the terms of the policy named below.
“This rider is valid only when attached to a…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Western Commercial Travelers' Ass'n v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- Freeman v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- City of San Francisco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Omberg v. United States Mutual Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Frankamp v. Fordney HotelMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Moore v. Lederle LaboratoriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Basil v. Butterworth HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Fenton v. American Liability Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930