Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

26 S.E.2d 115, 69 Ga. App. 459, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 117
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 8, 1943
Docket30025.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 26 S.E.2d 115 (Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Overstreet v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 26 S.E.2d 115, 69 Ga. App. 459, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Felton, J.

F. C. Overstreet, as administrator of Willis B. Dorminey, sued the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on a policy of life insurance issued to the insured, to recover a double-indemnity benefit alleged to have been due by reason of the alleged accidental death of the insured. The policy provided for such payment if the insured sustained bodily injuries “solely through external, violent, and accidental means, resulting, directly and independently of all other causes, in the death of the insured within ninety days from the date of such bodily injuries. . . No ac *460 cidenta.l death benefit will be paid if the death of the insured is . . caused or contributed to directly or indirectly, or wholly or partially, by disease, or by bodily or mental infirmity.” The defendant denied that the insured was killed accidentally, and contended that his death was caused or contributed to, directly or indirectly, by disease or bodily or mental infirmity. The court directed a verdict for the insurance company and denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, to which judgment he excepted.

The evidence showed that the insured fell as he walked up to a spooling machine in the Fitzgerald Cotton Mill, and as he was about to lay his hands on it. L. C. Walker testified that he saw the insured approach the machine; that he looked back and saw he was falling; that he didn’t know how he came to fall; that when he fell his head struck an iron loom beam; that he fell about four feet before his head hit the beam; that the floor was not wet but it was oily around the machine because the machine was oiled two or three times a day; that he couldn’t say whether the insured stumbled or what caused him to fall. The evidence showed that insured weighed about one hundred eighty pounds and was about forty-six years old. Those who testified stated that they knew him intimately and had never heard of his suffering from any organic or physical disease, and that he appeared to be a healthy, strong, and robust man.

If the death was contributed to or caused by disease or bodily infirmity the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Harris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 66 Ga. App. 761 (19 S. E. 2d, 191). The burden of proving liability on the part of the defendant was on the plaintiff. Green v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 67 Ga. App. 520 (21 S. E. 2d, 465) and cit. There was no evidence that the fall was accidental or was caused by accidental means, or that it was not caused by physical disease or infirmity. The latter theory was not reasonably excluded by the evidence, and no presumption fortified the plaintiff’s case. Where circumstantial evidence equally supports two theories it proves neither. Woodruff v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 67 Ga. App. 554 (21 S. E. 2d, 298), and cit.; Southern Railway Co. v. Newman, 187 Ga. 132 (199 S. E. 753). The plaintiff relies on Dorminy v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 61 Ga. App. 301 (6 S. E. 2d, 67). The ruling there is not applicable to this case for the reason *461 that an “accident” within the meaning of the compensation law is broader than is an accident under the provisions of the insurance policy here involved. If there had been evidence of an accidental fall the case would be different. Considering only the evidence which the plaintiff concedes was properly admitted the plaintiff did not make out a case, and it was not error for the court to direct a verdict for the defendant and to overrule the plaintiff’s motion for new trial. It is not necessary to pass on the other questions raised.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Related

Hulbert v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.
521 S.E.2d 43 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Life Insurance Co. v. Dodgen
252 S.E.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. McDaniel
234 S.E.2d 379 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Interstate Life & Accident Insurance v. Upshaw
195 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Continental Assurance Co. v. Rothell
176 S.E.2d 259 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Liberty National Life Insurance v. Liner
149 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
McCarty v. National Life & Accident Insurance
129 S.E.2d 408 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Chevrolet-Atlanta Division, General Motors Corp. v. Nash
59 S.E.2d 681 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Jones
56 S.E.2d 305 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Weathers Bros. Transfer Co. v. Jarrell
33 S.E.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Progressive Life Insurance v. Smith
30 S.E.2d 411 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 S.E.2d 115, 69 Ga. App. 459, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overstreet-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-gactapp-1943.