Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos H. Clark, Appellee, v. The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 19,253.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 31, 1914.
    Rehearing denied April 15, 1914.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final.)
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Amos H. Clark against The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California, a corporation, to recover a sum claimed by plaintiff to be due him under an accident insurance policy issued to plaintiff by the defendant. The policy insured the plaintiff “ against bodily injuries effected directly through external, violent and accidental means,” and provided payment of a weekly sum for loss of time resulting from such bodily injuries causing immediate, continuous and total disability of the insured from the date of the injury. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for one thousand two hundred dollars and costs, defendant appeals.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Insurance, § 433
      
      —effect of limitation of liability in accident policy to “continuous” disability. Where an accident insurance policy provided payment of a weekly indemnity for continuous disability, held that an interruption of eight days, during which the insured made an effort to work at his usual occupation on advice of a physician, did not destroy the continuity of his disability so as to preclude further recovery, it appearing that the general intention of the policy was to provide an indemnity .if by accidental injury the ability of the insured to earn money should be suspended by a disability to earn money by his personal exertions.
    2. Insurance, § 665— sufficiency of evidence to shoio waiver of provision limiting time to sue. Slight evidence is sufficient to establish a waiver of a condition in a policy as to the time suit must be brought on policy.
    3. Insurance, § 550
      
      —when provision limiting time to sue waived. A provision in an accident policy that suit cannot be brought thereon after a certain time from the date of filing proofs of disability, held waived where an officer of the insurance company requested the insured to wait and see the general adjuster and he was unable to see him until the limitation period had expired.
    4. Insurance, § 518
      
      —when terms of receipt for insurance money not conclusive. Signing of a receipt indorsed on the back of a check for money due under a policy, held not to have the effect in law of acknowledging full satisfaction and final settlement of all claims accrued or to accrue under the policy, and the terms of such receipt held subject to contradiction and explanation like any other receipt.
    George H. Mason, for appellant.
    William J. Lacey, for appellee.
    
      
      See niinoie Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.