TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Cas. Co. v. Heilman

Am. Cas. Co. v. Heilman, 194 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 24, 1952
Docket
No. 11071_1
Judges
Fahy, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Washington
Citations
194 F.2d 34890 U.S. App. D.C. 1701952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2771

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, an insured, brought this action in the Municipal Court to recover from appellant, an insurer, certain benefits allegedly due on an accident and 'health insurance policy. That court, sitting without jury, gave judgment for the insurer. The Municipal Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting, 1951, 81 A.2d 463 , with instructions that judgment be entered for the insured in the amount which had been stipulated as due to him if there was liability under the policy. We allowed an appeal to this court because the case turns upon a question of substance not heretofore determined by this court. Rule 1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Governing review of cases from the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 415 , 418. See § 11-773, D.C.Code (1940, Supp. VII).

The question to be decided is the effect to be given to a rider to tbe policy which provides, “The time of commencement of sickness shall not be questionable after said Policy has been maintained in force for a consecutive period of twenty-four (24) months.” The insurer defended on the ground that in the application for the policy false answers had been given by the *349 insured regarding past history of treatment for the very sickness out of which the claim subsequently arose. It was provided in the application that the falsity of any answer therein would act as a bar to recovery if made with intent to deceive or if it materially affected the acceptance of the risk assumed. The appellee insured contends, however, that the rider precludes any defense after twenty-four months, based upon the time of the commencement of the sickness, even a defense that the insured spoke falsely concerning that time on his application. In effect the contention is that the quoted clause is a limited incontestability clause, i. e., limited to the one subject mentioned. We agree with the court below in giving the rider this effect. Its judgment is accordingly.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 11962: 11968: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Norman Fields v. District of Columbia404 F.2d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
  2. Greenhaus v. American Progressive Health Insurance33 Misc. 2d 280 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  3. Concordia Lutheran Evangelical Church v. United States Casualty Co.115 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Norman Fields v. District of Columbia404 F.2d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
  2. Greenhaus v. American Progressive Health Insurance33 Misc. 2d 280 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  3. Concordia Lutheran Evangelical Church v. United States Casualty Co.115 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Heilman v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 81 A.2d 463 (D.C. 1951) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list