Case ID: nc_208/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

INEZ D. LEVI v. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
    (Filed 18 September, 1935.)
    Appeal by defendant from Pless, J., at December Term, 1934, of BUNCOMBE.
    Civil action to recover on certificate of group insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff as an'employee of tbe American Enka Corporation, and tried in tbe general county court upon tbe following issues:
    “1. Did tbe plaintiff, while an employee of tbe American Enka Corporation, become totally and permanently disabled by disease so as thereby presumably to be continuously prevented for life from engaging in any occupation or performing any work for compensation of financial value ? Answer: Wes.'
    “2. Did tbe plaintiff submit due proof of total permanent disability to tbe defendant within one year from tbe alleged commencement thereof? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    “3. Is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant under tbe terms of tbe master policy issued by tbe defendant to tbe American Enka Corporation, under which tbe individual certificate was issued to tbe plaintiff? Answer:‘Yes.’
    “4. What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant? Answer: ‘$453.15.’ ”
    Judgment on tbe verdict, from which defendant appealed to tbe Superior Court, assigning errors. These were overruled by tbe Superior Court sitting as an appellate court. From this latter judgment tbe defendant appeals.
    
      J oseph W. Little and, J oseph L. Auten for plaintiff.
    
    
      Parker, Bernard & DuBose for defendant.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

Tbe verdict is supported by tbe evidence, and tbe record is free from reversible error. Tbe conflict in tbe testimony of tbe witnesses relative to tbe alleged, and denied, total and permanent disability of plaintiff was a matter for tbe jury.

Tbe case of Thigpen v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 551, 168 S. E., 845, cited and relied upon by defendant, is not authority for tbe position taken.

No error bas been made to appear in any of tbe rulings of tbe Superior Court.

Affirmed.