Efthimi Thomas v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association

Second Circuit

Efthimi Thomas v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association

220 F.2d 17, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3296

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 28, 1955·No. 177, Docket 23288·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with Judge Dawson’s reading of the insurance contract. D.C.S.D. N.Y., 123 F.Supp. 167. Defendant belatedly suggests the existence of an issue of fact concerning plaintiff’s denial of further insurance covering this loss *18 other than that which she particularized in her affidavit. But the plaintiff’s affidavit to the point is clear and precise. And the defendant, who for a year thereafter had opportunity through pre-trial examination of the plaintiff and of others to develop contradictory facts, if such existed, asserts nothing beyond unsubstantiated doubt as to the accuracy of the plaintiff’s affidavit. Not thus easily may a litigant avoid the uses of summary judgment “to pierce the allegations of fact in the pleadings” to reach the essential core of truth. Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 469, 472; Willingham v. Eastern Airlines, 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 623, 624; United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 936, 943; Marion County Co-op. Ass’n v. Carnation Co., 8 Cir., 214 F.2d 557, 562; Appolonio v. Baxter, 6 Cir., 217 F.2d 267, 270; Byrnes v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 497, 500; Lawson v. American Motorists Ins. Corp., 5 Cir., 217 F.2d 724, 727.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with Judge Dawson’s reading of the insurance contract. D.C.S.D. N.Y., 123 F.Supp. 167. Defendant belatedly suggests the existence of an issue of fact concerning plaintiff’s denial of further insurance covering this loss *18 other than that which she particularized in her affidavit. But the plaintiff’s affidavit to the point is clear and precise. And the defendant, who for a year thereafter had opportunity through pre-trial examination of the plaintiff and of others to develop contradictory facts, if such existed, asserts nothing beyond unsubstantiated doubt as to the accuracy of the plaintiff’s affidavit. Not thus easily may a litigant avoid the uses of summary judgment “to pierce the allegations of fact in the pleadings” to reach the essential core of truth. Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 469, 472; Willingham v. Eastern Airlines, 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 623, 624; United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 936, 943; Marion County Co-op. Ass’n v. Carnation Co., 8 Cir., 214 F.2d 557, 562; Appolonio v. Baxter, 6 Cir., 217 F.2d 267, 270; Byrnes v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 497, 500; Lawson v. American Motorists Ins. Corp., 5 Cir., 217 F.2d 724, 727.

Affirmed.

Efthimi Thomas v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, 220 F.2d 17, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3296 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

220 F.2d 17 (Efthimi Thomas v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related