Mutual Life Ins. v. Hartung

Sixth Circuit

Mutual Life Ins. v. Hartung

162 F.2d 202, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 1947

DocketNo. 10453

StatusPublished

This text of 162 F.2d 202 (Mutual Life Ins. v. Hartung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Life Ins. v. Hartung, 162 F.2d 202, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119 (6th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal from a judgment in the court below awarding to the appellee the double compensation provided in a life insurance policy for death resulting from bodily injuries effected solely through accidental means, the insurer complains of the failure of the record to establish the fact of accident by substantial evidence and complains also of error in the court’s instructions to the jury upon the effect of a presumption against suicide.

Upon a careful consideration of the evidence we are of the opinion that the circumstances under which the insured met his death and such inferences as reasonably might be drawn therefrom, raised an issue of fact which the court was required to submit to the jury, and that by the jury’s determination we are bound.

It is further the view of the court that the instructions of the district judge upon the law in respect to the presumption against suicide, including the instruction that the presumption is not evidence, were not so lacking in clarity as to constitute reversible error, that they were well within the rationalized concept of the presumption developed by us in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 6 Cir., 30 F.2d 80; International Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 6 Cir., 17 F.2d 42, 50 A.L.R. 362; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lanahan, 6 Cir., 112 F.2d 375, and Harrison v. New York Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 78 F.2d 421, and that the Michigan [203]*203cases arc in substantial accord, Stuckum v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 283 Mich. 297, 277 N.W. 891; Wishcaless v. Hammond Standish, 201 Mich. 192, 166 N.W. 993; Rathman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 186 Mich. 115, 124, 152 N.W. 983, L.R.A. 1915E, 980, Ann.Cas.1917C, 459; Burnham v. Interstate Casualty Co., 117 Mich. 142, 75 N.W. 445. Wherefore

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal from a judgment in the court below awarding to the appellee the double compensation provided in a life insurance policy for death resulting from bodily injuries effected solely through accidental means, the insurer complains of the failure of the record to establish the fact of accident by substantial evidence and complains also of error in the court’s instructions to the jury upon the effect of a presumption against suicide.

Upon a careful consideration of the evidence we are of the opinion that the circumstances under which the insured met his death and such inferences as reasonably might be drawn therefrom, raised an issue of fact which the court was required to submit to the jury, and that by the jury’s determination we are bound.

It is further the view of the court that the instructions of the district judge upon the law in respect to the presumption against suicide, including the instruction that the presumption is not evidence, were not so lacking in clarity as to constitute reversible error, that they were well within the rationalized concept of the presumption developed by us in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 6 Cir., 30 F.2d 80; International Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 6 Cir., 17 F.2d 42, 50 A.L.R. 362; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lanahan, 6 Cir., 112 F.2d 375, and Harrison v. New York Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 78 F.2d 421, and that the Michigan [203]*203cases arc in substantial accord, Stuckum v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 283 Mich. 297, 277 N.W. 891; Wishcaless v. Hammond Standish, 201 Mich. 192, 166 N.W. 993; Rathman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 186 Mich. 115, 124, 152 N.W. 983, L.R.A. 1915E, 980, Ann.Cas.1917C, 459; Burnham v. Interstate Casualty Co., 117 Mich. 142, 75 N.W. 445. Wherefore

The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F.2d 202, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-life-ins-v-hartung-ca6-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack