Court Opinion

ID: 3571695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:24:46.531108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:36.775826
License: Public Domain

The decision in Gilbert v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., cited in the opinion of the Court in which I reluctantly concurred, is in my opinion wrong, and the dissent of Mr. Justice Zinn is correct. This was the conclusion of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (4th Circuit), opinion by Judge Parker, Bowles v. Mutual Ben. Health 
Accident Ass'n., 99 F.2d 44, 119 A.L.R. 756, 757, in which the Gilbert case is criticized.
However, the distinctions pointed out by Mr. Justice Zinn in his dissent, between the policies therein involved, do not obtain in this case. There the dominant feature of one was life insurance, the other accident and health. Here both are accident policies, and each covers accidental death.
I stated in my concurring opinion in the Gilbert case, and restate it here, that paragraph 17 in an insurance policy is a trap to catch the unwary that should be eliminated. It has been approved in this state by statute. It should have been made unlawful and void when incorporated in a policy instead. It is not too late for the legislature to correct this blunder, and protect the public against the injustice that we find here.