Los Angeles herald., 1892-05-27
SOME INSURANCE LAW.
A Case About an Accident In
surance Policy.
The Travellers Company Loses a
Suit.
A Decision Given from the Supreme
Court on Bean VS.. Travellers IN
surance COMPANY The
Points Involved.

Clerk Ashmore yesterday received the
following important opinion bearing on
insurance matters, from the supreme
court:
G. F. Bean, respondent, VS.. Travellers
Insurance Co., appellant. Appeal from
judgment and order refusing new trial.
This is an action on an accident insur-
ance policy. In his complaint the
plaintiff, after setting out the contract
of insurance and his injury, AYERS that: {:
within three months of the time OF
such accident, plaintiff furnished unto
the defendant affirmative proof OF his
said injuries. and of the character OF his
disability"
The answer "admits that the plaintiff
furnished defendant with what pur-
ported to be his affirmative proof at the
time alleged in the complaint, but de-
fendant denies that the same amounted
to affirmative proof of the duration OF
his alleged disability" The policy re-
quired written notice to be given of any
injury, and provided "unless affirmative
proof of death or loss Of limb or sight,
or of duration of disability is go fur
nished within seven months from the
time of such accident, all claims based
thereon shall be forfeited to the COM
psny."
At the trial plaintiff showed that his
proof was made out on blanks furnished
by the defendant, end with the advice
Of DR.. Ross. local examining surgeon OF
the defendant, and by him declared suf-
ficient, but did not offer the papers
themselves in evidence. Motion for
non-suit was made for alleged INSULT
cheney of the evidence in this respect,
and the same objection was argued on
motion for . new trial and 10 repeated
here.
I thinh there are several reasons
why this contention on the part of the
appellant cannot be sustained. First,
there is not sufficient denial. To admit
that proof was made, and then to assert
that it did not amount to affirmative
proof, is but to state a legal conclusion,
the mere opinion of the pleader. If the
defect was sufficiently material, it could
have denied the allegation that the pre-
liminary proof was made or could have
stated, with it's denial, just what was
done:
But if the objection was merely as to
the form of the proof that it was mega
tive rather than affirmative, meaning
that the injury or disability was stated
inferentially and not directly, it is OBJ
vious that in this particular case such
defect might have been specified by the
defendant, was waived.
The defendant by it's policy issued to
plaintiff insured him "under classifcal
ton preferred (being capitalist by oc-
cupation) in the sum of $50 per week,
against loss of time, not exceeding
twenty-six consecutive weeks, resulting
from bodily injuries which shall, inde-
pendently of all other causes, immedi-
ately and wholly disable him from
transacting any and every kind of busi-
ness pertaining to his occupation above
stated" The policy also provides that
if the insured is injured in any other
occupation or exposure classed BY the
company az more hazardous than that
stated, his insurance shall be only for
such sums as the premium paid by him
w
increased hazard. In the conditions it
was stated that no claim for indemnity
in excess of the money value of the
insured's time should be valid.
In the statement on motion for new
trial, there is no attempt to set out the
evidence which shows the disability,
but it's effect is thus summarized: "The
plaintiff proved he had sustained acci-
dents and injuries in mode and manner
substantially as set forth in his COM
plant, except that the second accident
took place August 80. 1889, instead of
August 16, 1889, and plaintiff also
proved that he had in consequence been
totally disabled from transacting any
business for twenty-six weeks next en-
suing after said accidents.".
It does not appear that there was evil
dence conflicting with plaintiffs. While
it cannot be taken that this statement
was agreed to, we have no alternative
but to conclude appellant comedies
plaintiff's testimony on that subject was
satisfactory, and it did not put in evil
hict, or it's counsel would have had the
evidence set out in the record.
The record diecloses, however, that
dppoAlbut ulu OUJoCv w tCntAuVuy "
plaintiff in regard to his occupation and
services in the superintendent and cul-
tivation of his orange orchard at his
home place, on the ground that it was
immaterial. The objection was over
ruled, but it does not appear that any
evidence in regard to the matter was
received after the objection. Whether
rulings were right or wong, therefore,
it does not appear that there was any
| injury.
The appellants objections to the
| plaintiffs instructions are next consid-
aidered, and the learned Judge continues
as follows: "Was it essential in respect
to this question for the plaintiff to prove
| the value of his time in the occupation
named? LIDO not find it so nominated
in the bond. On the other hand, find
that he may recover $50 per week, pro-
vided he shall recover no more than the
money value of his time; not what his
time was worth in the occupation
named, nor do / think any such qualifi-
cation was intended. It was merely
that he could not make money by
being hurt. Such condition affords
some security to the company
| aoainak fran 3tY 1oY,t nlo;uooi oa nuch