Wiest v. United States Health & Accident Insurance
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Allen, Nortoni, Reynolds
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal from trial court
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court addressing insurance policy interpretation regarding indemnity claims for loss of limbs. Court held that physical severance is not required—any loss rendering a member practically useless suffices—and that ambiguous policy provisions must be interpreted favorably to the insured.
Excerpt
<p>Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. J. Hugo Grimm} Judge.</p> <p>(1) Where the policy provides for the payment of an indemnity for the loss of one entire hand or foot, or the loss of two entire hands or feet, it is not necessary, in order to recover thereunder, that there should be an actual physical severance of the member from the body. Any loss which renders it practically useless is sufficient. 1 Cyc. p. 272, and cases cited; 5 Words & Phrases, p. 4236; Sisson v. Sup. Ct. of Honor, 104 Mo. App. 60; Sheanon v. Pac. Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Wis. 618; Lord v. Am. Mut. Acc. Assn., 89 Wis. 19; Sneak v. Trav. Ins. Co., 88 Hun 94; Gahagan v. Morrisey, 3 Lack. Leg. N. 168;' Garcelon v. Com. Trav. Assn., 184 Mass. 8; Fuller v. Locomotive Eng. Mut. Life & Acc. Ins. Assn., 122 Mich. 548. (2) The rule is well settled by an unbroken line of decisions in Missouri, that where the provisions of a policy are capable of two interpretations, that meaning must be applied which is the most favorable to the assured, even though it was intended otherwise by the insurer. Mathews v. Modern Woodman, 236 Mo. 326; Stix v. Indemnity Co., 175 Mo. App. 171; Dezell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 176 Mo. 253, 265; Head v. Ins. Co., 241 Mo. 403; Renshaw v. Ins. Co., 103 Mo. 597; Brown v. Assurance Co., 45 Mo. 221; Mining Co. v. Casualty Co., 162 Mo. App. 191; Renn v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo. App. 442, 447; Cunningham v. Union C. &. S. Co., 82 Mo. App. 614; Norman v. Ins. Co., 74 Mo. App. 456; Burnett v. Ins. Co., 68 Mo. App. 343; Hoffman v. Ins. Co., 56 Mo. App. 301; Ethington v. Ins. Co., 55 Mo. App. 129; Hale v. Ins. Co., 46 Mo. App. 508; La Force v. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 530.</p> <p>It is the duty of courts to construe contracts and to ascertain their meaning from all of the provisions thereof and not from single words or phrases or sentences, but, when there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the terms used, there is no room for the application of the technical rules of construction. Matth
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.