Hill v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

CoNNOR, J.

The judgment of nonsuit, dismissing this action, is affirmed on the authority of Boozer v. Assurance Society, 206 N. C., 848 , *168 175 S. E., 175 , and Thigpen v. Insurance Co., 204 N. C., 551 , 168 S. E., 845 .

These cases are easily distinguished from Carter v. U. S., 49 Fed. (2d), 221. In the latter case there was evidence tending to show that while the policy was in force the insured accepted employment, and attempted to perform the duties of his employment, but was forced, because of his disability, to abandon his work. In the instant case, as well as in the cited cases, all the evidence showed that the insured not only accepted employment, but performed the duties of his employment regularly and continuously while the policy was in force.

The evidence in the instant case failed to sustain the allegations of the complaint, which were sufficient to constitute a cause of action. By the terms of the policy defendant was liable to plaintiff’s intestate only if he became both totally and permanently disabled to pursue any occupation for wages or profit. The evidence failed to show that he became totally disabled, and for that reason the action was properly dismissed by judgment of nonsuit.

Affirmed.