MRS. LORENA C. REDDISH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
The insured died in a plane crash, and his wife sought double indemnity coverage under his insurance policy. The insurer denied the claim based on an …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action To Recover Under An Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this case we are asked to decide whether under all the evidence presented the district court committed error in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury or in the alternative to grant a new trial. The district court concluded that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof necessary to show that appellee’s husband was within the terms of the exclusion clause stated in the policy.
The insurance policy provided for double indemnity coverage if the insured died as the result of an accident. The insured met his untimely death along with his brother when the plane in which he was riding crashed. The insured’s wife then instituted this present action under review seeking the double recovery under the insured’s policy with the appellant. The appellant defended on the grounds that the double indemnity clause was not applicable to the wife’s claim because of the exclusion clause contained within the insurance contract.1
The district court noted that it could not say with assurance that there was no adequate basis for the jury’s conclusion. After reviewing the evidence, we con- elude that reasonable men could reach different conclusions from the evidence presented. See, Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F. 2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “Exclusions from coverage . . . Benefits for accidental death . . . shall not be payable if the death or loss results directly or indirectly from (f) Operating or riding in or descending from, any kind of aircraft of which the insured was pilot, officer or member of the crew or in which the insured was given or receiving training or instruction or had any duties.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)