Mittenthal v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Fourth Circuit

Mittenthal v. Travelers Ins. Co.

192 F.2d 808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1951

Docket6341_1

StatusPublished

This text of 192 F.2d 808 (Mittenthal v. Travelers Ins. Co.) 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

Mittenthal v. Travelers Ins. Co., 192 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action to recover on the provisions of two life insurance policies undertaking to pay double indemnity in case of accidental death. The contention of plaintiff is that insured accidentally fell from a window of his office in the fifth story of a building and was killed as a result of the fall. The contention of defendant is that insured committed suicide by jumping from the window. The evidence bearing on the issue is purely circumstantial; and we cannot say that it so clearly establishes the contention of either party that reasonable men could not differ as to the result. As the question was purely one of fact, it was properly submitted to the decision of the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The motions of plaintiff for direction of a verdict and for judgment n. o. v. were properly denied. No question is raised as to the correctness of the court’s charge.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in an action to recover on the provisions of two life insurance policies undertaking to pay double indemnity in case of accidental death. The contention of plaintiff is that insured accidentally fell from a window of his office in the fifth story of a building and was killed as a result of the fall. The contention of defendant is that insured committed suicide by jumping from the window. The evidence bearing on the issue is purely circumstantial; and we cannot say that it so clearly establishes the contention of either party that reasonable men could not differ as to the result. As the question was purely one of fact, it was properly submitted to the decision of the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The motions of plaintiff for direction of a verdict and for judgment n. o. v. were properly denied. No question is raised as to the correctness of the court’s charge.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 F.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mittenthal-v-travelers-ins-co-ca4-1951.