Harloe v. California State Life Insurance

273 P. 560, 206 Cal. 141, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 461
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 31, 1928
DocketDocket No. Sac. 4125.
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 273 P. 560 (Harloe v. California State Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harloe v. California State Life Insurance, 273 P. 560, 206 Cal. 141, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 461 (Cal. 1928).

Opinion

LANGDON, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against her, after a general demurrer to her complaint had been sustained without leave to amend.

The complaint seeks recovery of $4,000 upon a policy of life insurance issued upon the life of plaintiff’s deceased husband. The question involved in the case is whether the defendant is liable for $2,000, the face of the policy, or for double that amount by reason of the following provision contained therein: “In the event of death caused by bodily injuries effected exclusively and wholly by external, violent and accidental means, said death occurring within ninety days after the happening of the accident, the Company will pay the sum of $4,000.00 in lieu of $2,000.00.”

The complaint alleges that while the assured was in the performance of his regular duties that it became necessary, and the assured .did, with the assistance of another employee, go outside of a derrick in which he was working, to repair a water line. At the time the temperature at the place of employment was, approximately, 110 degrees. In the repairing of said water line he suffered a sunstroke, from which he subsequently died.

The case is governed by the rules announced in Rook v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 462 [L. R. A. 1916E, 1196, 156 Pac. 1029], Olinsky v. Railway Mail Assn., 182 Cal. 669 [14 A. L. R. 784, 189 Pac. 835], and Ogilvie v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 189 Cal. 407 [26 A. L. R. 116, 209 Pac. 26], which require a holding in the instant case that an effect which is the natural and probable consequence of an act or course of action cannot be said to be produced by accidental means.

The judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

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

Related

Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.
866 P.2d 774 (California Supreme Court, 1994)
Hargreaves v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
104 Cal. App. 3d 701 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Commercial Casualty Ins. v. Lloyd
10 So. 2d 292 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Jacobson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n
289 N.W. 591 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1940)
Adkins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
179 So. 382 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Bukaty
92 F.2d 1 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)
Bukata v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
67 P.2d 607 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)
Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Green.
1935 OK 695 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Dark v. Prudential Insurance Co.
40 P.2d 906 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
291 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Losleben v. California State Life Insurance
24 P.2d 825 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Muzzy v. Supreme Lodge of Fraternal Brotherhood
18 P.2d 107 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Davilla v. Liberty Life Insurance
299 P. 831 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Nickman v. New York Life Ins. Co.
39 F.2d 763 (Sixth Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 P. 560, 206 Cal. 141, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harloe-v-california-state-life-insurance-cal-1928.