Marks v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

Ninth Circuit

Marks v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

96 F.2d 267, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3473

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1938

Docket8670

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 F.2d 267 (Marks v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marks v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 96 F.2d 267, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3473 (9th Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is the beneficiary under a policy on her husband's life, also insuring in double the life principal against his accidental death. This coverage had an exception of death “from participation in aeronautics.”

The company admits that under the decisions in Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n v. Moyer, 9 Cir., 94 F.2d 906, and Gregory v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 522, the exception does not exclude a passenger on an aeroplane. It, argues, however, that in October, 1928, when the policy was issued, the term “participation in aeronautics” had a commonly accepted meaning — including mere travelers in planes — because of certain decisions in two state Supreme Courts and two intermediate appellate courts. It admits that the trend of decisions since these earlier cases is to the contrary, not only in the federal courts, such as in the Moyer and Gregory Cases, supra, but in the state courts. It claims this trend is due to a review in the light of the development of air,travel.

However, in 1927, the year before the policy in question was issued, the statistics of the “Air Craft Year Book,” published by the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America, shows that 710 aeroplanes carried 463,367 passengers in 8,047,-517 miles of travel. The time for reconsideration of earlier views had already arrived when the policy was issued. We hold that this policy covered death to a passenger in an aeroplane, who in no way participated in its management.

The decedent was one of the passengers killed in the same accident which caused the death of the beneficiary’s husband in the case of Swasey v. Massachusetts Protective Association, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 265, this day decided. The stipulated facts show nothing more of the claimed participation in the management of the plane than in that case. We hold that the deceased was a passenger on the plane and nothing more, and that appellant should have recovered the double indemnity.

Reversed.

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

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is the beneficiary under a policy on her husband's life, also insuring in double the life principal against his accidental death. This coverage had an exception of death “from participation in aeronautics.”

The company admits that under the decisions in Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n v. Moyer, 9 Cir., 94 F.2d 906, and Gregory v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 522, the exception does not exclude a passenger on an aeroplane. It, argues, however, that in October, 1928, when the policy was issued, the term “participation in aeronautics” had a commonly accepted meaning — including mere travelers in planes — because of certain decisions in two state Supreme Courts and two intermediate appellate courts. It admits that the trend of decisions since these earlier cases is to the contrary, not only in the federal courts, such as in the Moyer and Gregory Cases, supra, but in the state courts. It claims this trend is due to a review in the light of the development of air,travel.

However, in 1927, the year before the policy in question was issued, the statistics of the “Air Craft Year Book,” published by the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America, shows that 710 aeroplanes carried 463,367 passengers in 8,047,-517 miles of travel. The time for reconsideration of earlier views had already arrived when the policy was issued. We hold that this policy covered death to a passenger in an aeroplane, who in no way participated in its management.

The decedent was one of the passengers killed in the same accident which caused the death of the beneficiary’s husband in the case of Swasey v. Massachusetts Protective Association, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 265, this day decided. The stipulated facts show nothing more of the claimed participation in the management of the plane than in that case. We hold that the deceased was a passenger on the plane and nothing more, and that appellant should have recovered the double indemnity.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F.2d 267, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-mutual-life-ins-co-of-new-york-ca9-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack