Court Opinion

ID: 9475888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:41:41.84397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:00.613756
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Senior District Judge, dissenting:
The policy provides benefits for employees of Scott if the employee “becomes totally and permanently disabled ... to such an extent that he is rendered wholly, continuously and permanently unable to engage in any occupation or perform any work for any kind of compensation of financial value during the remainder of his life____” The policy further provides, “Prudential, upon receipt of due proof of such disability will grant the following benefits:” The policy also provides, “Written proof of loss upon which claim may be based must be furnished to Prudential ____” The above provisions are not ambiguous.
In my view no such proof of loss was ever furnished to Prudential. Under the case of New York Life Ins. Co. v. Mason, 236 Ala. 44, 180 So. 775 (1938), the furnishing of such proof of disability is a condition precedent to recovery. Under Alabama law, the sufficiency of such proof of loss is a question of law and not of fact for the jury. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Dorriety, 229 Ala. 352, 157 So. 59 (1934).
I would reverse and enter a judgment not withstanding the verdict in favor of Prudential.