Peter M. Brady v. Continental Casualty Company

Fifth Circuit

Peter M. Brady v. Continental Casualty Company

497 F.2d 1015, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 1974

Docket1015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 497 F.2d 1015 (Peter M. Brady v. Continental Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peter M. Brady v. Continental Casualty Company, 497 F.2d 1015, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this Florida diversity action by appellant Brady against Continental Casualty Company for recovery of benefits for permanent total disability under an accident disability insurance policy the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Continental. By this appeal, appellant Brady complains that the district court committed error in refusing to grant him a directed verdict on the grounds that the definition of the word “injury” contained in the policy of insurance was ambiguous.

Being a diversity case, this court must apply Florida substantive law. Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). On the basis of the decisions of Florida courts in Berg v. New York Life Insurance Company, 88 So.2d 915 (Fla.1956), and Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 215 So.2d 59 (Fla.App.1968), as well as other Florida decisions, 1 it seems clear that an *1016 insured seeking to recover permanent total disability benefits under an insurance policy which provides that the permanent total disability must result from bodily injury caused by an accident and resulting directly and independently of all other causes, has the burden of proving that the cause of his disability falls within these provisions. In the instant case, the evidence indicated that the insured’s disability was caused by pre-existing conditions which was merely aggravated by the accident, and on the evidence submitted appellant was not entitled to recover under the terms of the contract of insurance.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. See also, Benante v. Allstate Insurance Company, 477 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1973) ; Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Schreffler, 376 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1967); Decker v. New York Life Insurance Company, 328 F.2d 650 (5th Cir. 1964); Ryan v. Continental Casualty Co., 47 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1931), construing Florida law.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this Florida diversity action by appellant Brady against Continental Casualty Company for recovery of benefits for permanent total disability under an accident disability insurance policy the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Continental. By this appeal, appellant Brady complains that the district court committed error in refusing to grant him a directed verdict on the grounds that the definition of the word “injury” contained in the policy of insurance was ambiguous.

Being a diversity case, this court must apply Florida substantive law. Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). On the basis of the decisions of Florida courts in Berg v. New York Life Insurance Company, 88 So.2d 915 (Fla.1956), and Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 215 So.2d 59 (Fla.App.1968), as well as other Florida decisions, 1 it seems clear that an *1016 insured seeking to recover permanent total disability benefits under an insurance policy which provides that the permanent total disability must result from bodily injury caused by an accident and resulting directly and independently of all other causes, has the burden of proving that the cause of his disability falls within these provisions. In the instant case, the evidence indicated that the insured’s disability was caused by pre-existing conditions which was merely aggravated by the accident, and on the evidence submitted appellant was not entitled to recover under the terms of the contract of insurance.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. See also, Benante v. Allstate Insurance Company, 477 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1973) ; Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Schreffler, 376 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1967); Decker v. New York Life Insurance Company, 328 F.2d 650 (5th Cir. 1964); Ryan v. Continental Casualty Co., 47 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1931), construing Florida law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 F.2d 1015, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-m-brady-v-continental-casualty-company-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack