Royal Ins. Co. v. Story

Supreme Court of Alabama

Royal Ins. Co. v. Story

40 So. 2d 724, 252 Ala. 275, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 410

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 19, 1949

Docket7 Div. 9.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 40 So. 2d 724 (Royal Ins. Co. v. Story) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Royal Ins. Co. v. Story, 40 So. 2d 724, 252 Ala. 275, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 410 (Ala. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

The petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals challenges the opinion of that court in respect to its holding (1) that the provision of the insurance policy that “this policy shall be void if the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof or in case of any fraud, attempted fraud or false swearing by the Insured- touching any matter relating to this insurance or- the, subject, *276 thereof, whether before or after a loss,” did not apply to false statements by the insured in his testimony in the trial of the case; and (2) in holding that the verdict of the jury was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

On a careful consideration of the case, we have concluded with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

In respect to the first ground argued for error, it is conceded that there is a conflict of authority, but the better-reasoned cases, as we view them, affirm the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Joyce on Insurance, 2d Ed., Vol. 5, § 3344, at p. 5554; Couch’s Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, Vol. 7, p. 5516, § 1557; Insurance Companies v. Weides, 81 U.S. 375, 14 Wall. 375, 20 L.Ed. 894; Goldberg v. Provident Washington Ins. Co., 144 Ga. 783, 87 S.E. 1077; Third National Bank v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 218 Mo.App. 660, 267 S.W. 445; Deitz v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 33 W.Va. 526, 11 S.E. 50, 25 Am.St.Rep. 908; American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Pyle, 62 Ga.App. 156, 8 S.E.2d 154; Hall v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 91 N.H. 6, 13 A.2d 157.

The second challenge for error is manifestly untenable, since we will not review the findings of the Court of Appeals on the question of the weight of the evidence. Ex parte Wetzel, 243 Ala. 130, 8 So.2d 824; Consford v. State, 200 Ala. 23, 75 So. 335.

Writ denied.

BROWN, LIVINGSTON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

The petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals challenges the opinion of that court in respect to its holding (1) that the provision of the insurance policy that “this policy shall be void if the Insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof or in case of any fraud, attempted fraud or false swearing by the Insured- touching any matter relating to this insurance or- the, subject, *276 thereof, whether before or after a loss,” did not apply to false statements by the insured in his testimony in the trial of the case; and (2) in holding that the verdict of the jury was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

On a careful consideration of the case, we have concluded with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

In respect to the first ground argued for error, it is conceded that there is a conflict of authority, but the better-reasoned cases, as we view them, affirm the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Joyce on Insurance, 2d Ed., Vol. 5, § 3344, at p. 5554; Couch’s Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, Vol. 7, p. 5516, § 1557; Insurance Companies v. Weides, 81 U.S. 375, 14 Wall. 375, 20 L.Ed. 894; Goldberg v. Provident Washington Ins. Co., 144 Ga. 783, 87 S.E. 1077; Third National Bank v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 218 Mo.App. 660, 267 S.W. 445; Deitz v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 33 W.Va. 526, 11 S.E. 50, 25 Am.St.Rep. 908; American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Pyle, 62 Ga.App. 156, 8 S.E.2d 154; Hall v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 91 N.H. 6, 13 A.2d 157.

The second challenge for error is manifestly untenable, since we will not review the findings of the Court of Appeals on the question of the weight of the evidence. Ex parte Wetzel, 243 Ala. 130, 8 So.2d 824; Consford v. State, 200 Ala. 23, 75 So. 335.

Writ denied.

BROWN, LIVINGSTON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 2d 724, 252 Ala. 275, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-ins-co-v-story-ala-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack