Dorothy Aylesworth v. Mutual of Omaha, (77-1400) Dorothy Aylesworth v. Travelers Insurance Company, (77-1433)

Sixth Circuit

Dorothy Aylesworth v. Mutual of Omaha, (77-1400) Dorothy Aylesworth v. Travelers Insurance Company, (77-1433)

598 F.2d 1040

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1979

Docket77-1400, 77-1433

StatusPublished

This text of 598 F.2d 1040 (Dorothy Aylesworth v. Mutual of Omaha, (77-1400) Dorothy Aylesworth v. Travelers Insurance Company, (77-1433)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorothy Aylesworth v. Mutual of Omaha, (77-1400) Dorothy Aylesworth v. Travelers Insurance Company, (77-1433), 598 F.2d 1040 (6th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant insurance companies appeal the orders of District Judges Pratt and *1041 Joiner granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in two diversity suits to collect benefits under a policy of accident insurance issued by each of the insurance companies. The insurance contracts, which were entered into in Michigan, provide for benefits if the insured were accidentally killed or injured “while riding ... as a passenger in or on, or entering [in one of the contracts the word here is “boarding” instead of “entering”] or alighting from a public conveyance . . . provided by a common carrier for passenger service

The deceased, plaintiff’s husband, was killed when he fell from a Toronto subway platform onto the tracks and was struck by an oncoming train. He had purchased a ticket to ride the subway and was waiting for his train when he leaned over the edge of the platform, presumably to ascertain whether a train was approaching, and fell onto the tracks.

Plaintiff demanded double indemnity in the amount of $50,000 on one of the policies and $200,000 for the accident on the other, and the companies refused payment. Plaintiff then brought these two suits. After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgments contending that the facts are undisputed and clearly establish the liability of the insurers under the policies.

Michigan courts have given broad definition to the term “passenger” as found in similar insurance policies in similar situations where the injured “passenger” no longer had physical contact with, or was waiting for, the conveyance. See Nickerson v. Citizens’ Mutual Insurance Co., 393 Mich. 324, 224 N.W.2d 896 (1975); Quinn v. New York Life Insurance Co., 224 Mich. 641, 195 N.W. 427 (1923). See also Ludwig v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1975) (interpreting Michigan law), rev’d on other grounds, 426 U.S. 479, 96 S.Ct. 2158, 48 L.Ed.2d 784 (1976). Our reading of these cases convinces us that Michigan courts would hold that the words “boarding” or “entering a public conveyance” used in these insurance contracts, include a passenger who has purchased his ticket and is waiting momentarily on the platform to board a subway. This conclusion is reinforced by the decision below of Judges Pratt and Joiner, two able and experienced Michigan District Judges familiar with the law of the state.

Accordingly, we hereby affirm the judgments of the District Courts.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant insurance companies appeal the orders of District Judges Pratt and *1041 Joiner granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in two diversity suits to collect benefits under a policy of accident insurance issued by each of the insurance companies. The insurance contracts, which were entered into in Michigan, provide for benefits if the insured were accidentally killed or injured “while riding ... as a passenger in or on, or entering [in one of the contracts the word here is “boarding” instead of “entering”] or alighting from a public conveyance . . . provided by a common carrier for passenger service

The deceased, plaintiff’s husband, was killed when he fell from a Toronto subway platform onto the tracks and was struck by an oncoming train. He had purchased a ticket to ride the subway and was waiting for his train when he leaned over the edge of the platform, presumably to ascertain whether a train was approaching, and fell onto the tracks.

Plaintiff demanded double indemnity in the amount of $50,000 on one of the policies and $200,000 for the accident on the other, and the companies refused payment. Plaintiff then brought these two suits. After discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgments contending that the facts are undisputed and clearly establish the liability of the insurers under the policies.

Michigan courts have given broad definition to the term “passenger” as found in similar insurance policies in similar situations where the injured “passenger” no longer had physical contact with, or was waiting for, the conveyance. See Nickerson v. Citizens’ Mutual Insurance Co., 393 Mich. 324, 224 N.W.2d 896 (1975); Quinn v. New York Life Insurance Co., 224 Mich. 641, 195 N.W. 427 (1923). See also Ludwig v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1975) (interpreting Michigan law), rev’d on other grounds, 426 U.S. 479, 96 S.Ct. 2158, 48 L.Ed.2d 784 (1976). Our reading of these cases convinces us that Michigan courts would hold that the words “boarding” or “entering a public conveyance” used in these insurance contracts, include a passenger who has purchased his ticket and is waiting momentarily on the platform to board a subway. This conclusion is reinforced by the decision below of Judges Pratt and Joiner, two able and experienced Michigan District Judges familiar with the law of the state.

Accordingly, we hereby affirm the judgments of the District Courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 F.2d 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-aylesworth-v-mutual-of-omaha-77-1400-dorothy-aylesworth-v-ca6-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack