Georgie W. McCallum v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Georgie W. McCallum v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York Corporation

274 F.2d 431, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1960

Docket8004_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 274 F.2d 431 (Georgie W. McCallum v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Georgie W. McCallum v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York Corporation, 274 F.2d 431, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5570 (4th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff; appellant, seeks to recover from Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellee and defendant below, under double indemnity provisions of life insurance policies in event of death of insured as a direct result of bodily injury effected through external, violent and accidental means. The District Court sustained a motion for summary judgment filed by the insurance company.

The opinion of the District Court is reported in 1959, 175 F.Supp. 3, 7. It was there stated:

“If called upon to instruct the jury on the interpretation of what is meant by the words ‘external means’, it would be incumbent upon this Court to find, under the uncontradicted facts, that the insured did not die from injuries solely through ‘external means’ * * *

The immediate cause of death of the insured was determined to be suffocation, due to aspiration of vomitus. There was no “mechanical lodging of food in the windpipe”. The pathological diagnosis, contained in the report of autopsy, revealed “acute aspiration of gastric contents to trachea, bronchi and bronchi-oles” and the probable cause of death was stated as “acute aspiration of gastric contents to trachea”.

We affirm and adopt the opinion of the District Court, insofar as it is based upon its interpretation of “external means” and its determination that the death of the insured was not a direct result of bodily injury effected through external means, within the meaning of the double indemnity provisions of the insurance policies. 1

Affirmed.

1

. The District Court referred to, and briefly discussed, the case of Landress v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1934, 291 U.S. 491, 54 S.Ct. 461, 78 L.Ed. 934, which involved the construction and application of insurance policy provisions pertaining to death by accidental means. For a discussion. of the applicable law in the Commonwealth of Virginia as to insurance coverage in event of death by “accidental means” see the decision of this court on rehearing, speaking through Judge Soper, American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Belch, 4 Cir., 1938, 100 F.2d 48, 50, 51.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff; appellant, seeks to recover from Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellee and defendant below, under double indemnity provisions of life insurance policies in event of death of insured as a direct result of bodily injury effected through external, violent and accidental means. The District Court sustained a motion for summary judgment filed by the insurance company.

The opinion of the District Court is reported in 1959, 175 F.Supp. 3, 7. It was there stated:

“If called upon to instruct the jury on the interpretation of what is meant by the words ‘external means’, it would be incumbent upon this Court to find, under the uncontradicted facts, that the insured did not die from injuries solely through ‘external means’ * * *

The immediate cause of death of the insured was determined to be suffocation, due to aspiration of vomitus. There was no “mechanical lodging of food in the windpipe”. The pathological diagnosis, contained in the report of autopsy, revealed “acute aspiration of gastric contents to trachea, bronchi and bronchi-oles” and the probable cause of death was stated as “acute aspiration of gastric contents to trachea”.

We affirm and adopt the opinion of the District Court, insofar as it is based upon its interpretation of “external means” and its determination that the death of the insured was not a direct result of bodily injury effected through external means, within the meaning of the double indemnity provisions of the insurance policies. 1

Affirmed.

1

. The District Court referred to, and briefly discussed, the case of Landress v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1934, 291 U.S. 491, 54 S.Ct. 461, 78 L.Ed. 934, which involved the construction and application of insurance policy provisions pertaining to death by accidental means. For a discussion. of the applicable law in the Commonwealth of Virginia as to insurance coverage in event of death by “accidental means” see the decision of this court on rehearing, speaking through Judge Soper, American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Belch, 4 Cir., 1938, 100 F.2d 48, 50, 51.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 431, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgie-w-mccallum-v-mutual-life-insurance-company-of-new-york-a-new-ca4-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack