The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1914-03-20
COUR AIDES
lie CUES ion
Does Not Decide Whether Sum
stroke Is Disease or
Accident.
Mooted Medical Question Up in
Accident Insurance
Case. g..
From Mondays Daily. y ~ . s<. Is. =
Is sunstroke an accident or dis

= "a
Is sunstroke an accident or dis
ease? - -. = ~. - - .-,:-
T This question, one on which medi-.
cal authorities differ, was put up to
the supreme court Of Minnesota in
St. Louis county case few months
ago, and might have been settled as
matter Of law in this state had the
higher court not evaded the question
by settling the isues in dispute on an
other point Of law. .>.
The action at bar was upon an &C
cident policy insuring the employees of
Pickands-Mather & Co., against bodi-
ly injuries suffered through external,
violent and accidental means. The
policy as printed contained provi-
sion that it did not cover casualties
resulting from certain specific causes
among which sunstroke was included.
The Pickands- Mather company
wanted a policy which covered sun
stroke and for this reason the word
sunstroke was stricken from the ex-
ceptions of the policy. At the trial
of the case in district curt, Edward
Leidel, agent for the London, Guaran-
tee & Accident company, limited, the
insurers, testified that the word sun
stroke was crossed out in red ink from
the list Of exceptions in the policy at
the request Of the mining company,
which wanted sunstroke covered by
the policy.
John Moline, an employee of the
Pickands-Mather company, died June
2, 1912, from sunstroke. The in
surance company refused to pay the
claim and suit was brought by his en-
| ployers to recover the money for his
estate. A jury in district court re,
turned a verdict in favor of the Pick
ands-Mather company for $3.50, the
amount sued for, to be held in trust
by the company for the dead mans
estate.
Comes to Fine Point.
The contention of the insurance
company at the trial was that al
though the word "sunstroke" had been
crossed from the list of exceptions
not covered by the policy that the
Pickands-M ather company was not
entitled to recover on the theory that
sunstroke was a disease and not an
accident. If a disease, it would not
come under the terms of the policy
Medical authorities are at variance or
the subject.
Judge Festler was asked to grant
a new trial., but the motion was de-
MED. From the order of the trial
court denying a second trial of the
case, an appeal was taken to the su.
preme court. In a decision handed
down yesterday the order of the trial
court was affirmed.
The supreme court held that a YER
bal contract had been made between
the mining company and the insur-
ance company for the policy covering
sunstroke and that the policy should
so be construed. The court in its syl-
labus stated:
"When the proper construction Of a
contract is not free from doubt, re-
course may be had to the preliminary
negotiations between the parties for
the purpose of determining the cor
rect construction to be given it."
The case was decided on this point
and not upon whether or not sun
stroke was an accident or disease,
although this was raised as an issue.
Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell repre-
sented Pickands-Mather & Co., and
the insurance company.