Court Opinion

ID: 9834170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:21:45.021904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.433923
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
The motion only questions our holding construing the policy provision regarding notice of disability, elaborately reviewing the authorities upon this issue.
We have re-examined this question in the light of the motion, and have reached the conclusion that our holding, while in direct conflict with some of -the decisions in other jurisdictions, is sound, and is supported by the better reasoning. Directly in point, as to the wording of the disability clause, and supporting our holding, are the following: State Life Ins. Co. v. Fann (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 1111 (error refused); Marti v. Ins. Co., 108 Neb. 845, 189 N. W. 388, 29 A. L. R. 1507; Pfeiffer v. Ins. Co., 174 Ark. 783, 297 S. W. 847, 54 A. L. R. 601; Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 977. A number of other decisions in which there is some slight difference in the wording of the policies support our holding in principle.
We are unable to distinguish the case at bar from the Fann Case, in which writ of error was refused. The disability clauses in the two cases are in all material respects identical.
The motion is overruled.