Legal Opinion · Dissent

Duvall v. Massachusetts Indemnity & Life Insurance

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 9, 1988No. 87-288Published

1DissentRobert H. Dudley, Justice

I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the insured’s death was not accidental under the language of the insurance policy. The majority opinion is based upon the single idea that because the death was caused in part by a pre-existing disease, it could not be “accidental” under the policy. Such an approach not only oversimplifies the issue, but also is clearly wrong in light of previous cases decided by this Court.

The overwhelming majority of our cases dealing with accident insurance claims have been concerned with policy language which limited recovery to injuries…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. BrudenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  3. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company v. FairchildSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  4. Clay County Cotton Co. v. Home Life Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
  5. Union Life Insurance v. EppersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953

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

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

Powered by the Exa API