Pan-American Life Insurance v. Kirkpatrick

183 S.E. 88, 52 Ga. App. 344, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 166
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 24, 1935
Docket25012
StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E. 88 (Pan-American Life Insurance v. Kirkpatrick) 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
Pan-American Life Insurance v. Kirkpatrick, 183 S.E. 88, 52 Ga. App. 344, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. A group insurance policy, issued to a benefit association composed of employees of a railroad company, provided for payment of total disability benefits to any employee on “due proof that he has, while an employee of the employer during the continuance of this contract, . . become wholly disabled by bodily injury or disease, and will be permanently, continuously, and wholly prevented from engaging in any occupation or employment for wage or profit.” In a suit on the policy by a former employee, the undisputed proof showed that the plaintiff, although suffering from the effects of a previous hernia, was not prevented from performing his work as a machinist’s helper or roundhouse foreman, which required little physical labor; but that he quit his employment with the company when it informed him that, on account of certain “rules of seniority,” it intended to displace him with another man, offering him the choice of two other jobs. The plaintiff not being physically disabled from performing what had been the duties of his employment during the entire period covered by the policy and at the time when he ceased to be an employee, and any subsequent total disability having arisen after he had ceased to be such an employee, he was not entitled to recover. Prudential Insurance Co. v. South, 179 Ga. 653, 658-660 (177 S. E. 499); Cato v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 164 Ga. 392 (138 S. E. 787); Blackman v. Travelers Insurance Co., 49 Ga. App. 137 (174 S. E. 384); Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 25 Ala. App. 446 (148 So. 338); Peyton v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (La.), 148 So. 721. A verdict for the defendant being demanded, by the evidence, it was error to refuse a new trial.

2. The special grounds of the motion for new trial need not be dealt with, since the ruling stated above is controlling. .

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Bryan, Middlebrooks & Carter, John A. Dunaway, Yantis C. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. Winfield P. Jones, Louis H. Poster, Carroll P. Jones, contra.

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

Related

Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Garrett
148 So. 338 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1933)
Peyton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
148 So. 721 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1933)
Cato v. Ætna Life Insurance
138 S.E. 787 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. South
177 S.E. 499 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Blackman v. Travelers Insurance
174 S.E. 384 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 S.E. 88, 52 Ga. App. 344, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pan-american-life-insurance-v-kirkpatrick-gactapp-1935.