Court Opinion

ID: 9832122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:38:17.866088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:42.362586
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the motion' for rehearing appellant earnestly contends that we failed to distinguish between “accident” and “injury” as used in the policy sued on. It is contended that, while plaintiff- sustained an accident, March 31, 1920, the injury was the removal of the eye which resulted from it, June 24, 1921, from which date the pa'rtial incapacity sued on began.
The policy is not susceptible to the construction contended for. Reference to the insuring clause set forth in the original opinion will show that the thing insured against was “bodily injury” sustained through “accidental means” and resulting in "immediate (as respects the injury or as respects preceding total disability) and continuous partial disability.” Appellant sustained a “bodily injury,” i. e., an injury to his eye, at the time of the accident. It was attempted by medical treatment to save the eye but to no avail. It finally had to be removed. 'The removal of the eye was not the “injury” but the result of the injury.
Had appellant been able in this case to show that disability, either partial or total or both, existed from and after the time his eye was injured,, he would have clearly been entitled to recover. But, unfortunately he is barred by the federal court’s judgment from establishing such fact, if it was a fact.
We make the holding with reluctance. The appellant was unquestionably injured. His accident policy was in full force and effect with all premiums paid. But as we understand the law and the record, the appellant is unable to bring his alleged cause of action within the provisions of the policy.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.