Baker v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

83 S.E. 16, 168 N.C. 87, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 9
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 14, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 16 (Baker v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, 83 S.E. 16, 168 N.C. 87, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 9 (N.C. 1914).

Opinion

*88 Per Cubiam.

This is a second appeal in the same action, the first being reported in 163 N. C., 175.

The only issue in controversy upon the second trial was the following: “Did the insured die by his own hand or act with intent to commit suicide ?” which was answered in favor of the plaintiff, and the only exceptions seriously debated are to the charge of his Honor instructing the jury that the burden was upon the defendant to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the deceased committed suicide, and to the refusal to charge the jury to answer the issue “Yes” if they believed the evidence.

In our opinion, there is no error in either ruling. "When an insurance company seeks to avoid payment of a policy on account of suicide, the burden of the issue is on the defendant (Thaxton v. Ins. Co., 143 N. C., 37), and “the weight of the evidence must be with the party who has the burden of proof, or else he cannot succeed.” Chaffin v. Mfg. Co., 135 N. C., 100.

The'evidence as to suicide was circumstantial, and while sufficient to justify an answer to the issue in favor of the defendant, it was not conclusive, and the inference of an accidental killing could be accepted.

If so, it was for the jury, and not his Honor, to draw the inference, and to have given the peremptory instruction requested would have- been an invasion of the province of the jury. .

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hampton v. Cumberland Cty.
808 S.E.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2017)
Starkey Paint Co. v. Springfield Life Insurance
211 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
Blythe v. Kanawha Insurance
279 F. Supp. 8 (W.D. North Carolina, 1968)
MacClure v. Accident & Casualty Insurance Co.
49 S.E.2d 742 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Hedgecock v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance
194 S.E. 86 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Tabor v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
13 F.2d 765 (Fourth Circuit, 1926)
Alexander v. . Cedar Works
98 S.E. 312 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works
177 N.C. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Potter v. . Bonner
93 S.E. 370 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 S.E. 16, 168 N.C. 87, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-massachusetts-mutual-life-insurance-nc-1914.