Legal Document

426 U.S. 479 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2158 48 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 784 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYv.Benno Pacific KF135 P2 LUDWIG, etc. Number 75-1504. June 14, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 This is a diversity case. Petitioner (the insurer) issued life insurance policy in Michigan to Dean E. Cane providing for double indemnity if Cane's "death was the result of an injury sustained while insured passenger or upon public conveyance then being operated by common carrier transport passengers hire . .." killed Illinois freight train crossing railroad track order board commuter which had not yet arrived at station. The insurer paid estate ordinary benefits, but denied liability under provision policy. 2 Administrator (respondent) sued District Northern recover benefits provision. held that conflict-of-laws rules, law situs contract (Michigan) applied, and liable only benefits. administrator appealed. argued Appeals Seventh Circuit Court's application interpretation correct, alternatively rules required substantive this case, its also reversed, 524 Federal Reporter, 2nd 376 (1975), without reaching question State's would be applicable conflicts rule. court precluded from arguing on appeal applicability law, because it cross-appealed ruling applied. Id., 379 n. 1. 3 Appeals' decision issue plainly odds with "inveterate certain" rule, Morley company versus Maryland Cas. Co., 300 185, 191, 57 325, 328, 81 L.Ed. 593 (1937), American Ry. Exp. 265 425, 435, 44 560, 564, 68 1087 (1924), where unanimous said: 4 "It true party who does final decree trial cannot heard opposition thereto when case brought here adverse party. In other words, appellee may attack view either enlarging his own rights thereunder lessening adversary, whether what he seeks correct error supplement respect matter dealt below. But likewise settled may, taking cross-appeal, urge support any appearing record, although argument involve reasoning lower insistence overlooked ignored it." (Footnote omitted.) 5 before Illinois, Michigan, applied no more than "an court," as such cross-appeal. 6 Because did "not reach nor express opinion effect tort claim doctrine" F.2d, 1, we think "appropriate remand rather deal merits Court." Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 476 6, 90 1153, 1157, 25 491 (1970). Accordingly, petition writ certiorari granted, judgment vacated, remanded further proceedings conformity opinion. 7 So ordered. 8 Mr. Justice STEVENS took part consideration

Classification Label: 7