Curtis v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania

4 Citing cases

  1. Farmers Bank Trust, v. Transamerica Ins. Co.

    674 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    In Farmers Bank, we reversed a district court's requiring an insurer to prove that a note on which he sought to recover was not forged.

    Tennessee case law recognizes that the burden is on the insured to prove the essential elements of his cause of action to recover on an insurance policy. Curtis v. American Casualty Co., 60 Tenn. App. 204, 445 S.W.2d 661 (1968) (life insurance claim). See Hurt v. Merchants and Manufacturers Insurance Co., 188 Tenn. 572, 221 S.W.2d 808 (1949) (automobile insurance claim).

  2. Smith v. Life Ins. Co. of North America

    872 F. Supp. 482 (W.D. Tenn. 1994)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that decedent's voluntary consumption of alcohol, resulting in a level of .23, was at least a partial cause of vehicular collision, precluding accidental benefits

    As the Sixth Circuit noted in Farmers Bank Trust Co. of Winchester, Tennessee v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 674 F.2d 548 (6th Cir. 1982), Tennessee case law recognizes that the burden is on the insured to prove the essential elements of his cause of action to recover under an insurance policy. Id. (citing Curtis v. American Casualty Co., 60 Tenn. App. 204, 445 S.W.2d 661 (1968)). Specifically, the insured must prove that the death or injury of the insured was the result of a cause, and was sustained in a manner, covered by the policy.

  3. Pan Am. Fire Cas. Co. v. Edwards Aircraft Inc.

    377 F. Supp. 205 (N.D. Ala. 1974)   Cited 5 times
    Applying substantive law of Alabama to insurance coverage dispute

    For applications under laws of other states of this general principle to aircraft liability policies, see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warner, 169 Colo. 391, 456 P.2d 732 (1969) (exclusion for members of crew); Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Deal, 474 F.2d 1216 (CA8 1973) (exclusion for employees of insured); Coffin v. Insurance Co. of North America, 429 F.2d 1312 (CA5 1970) (no coverage for passengers; unclear whether the result of an exclusion clause or language of coverage clause). Cf. Curtis v. American Casualty Co., 60 Tenn. App. 204, 445 S.W.2d 661 (1968) (coverage only for passengers; statute defining passengers). This court concludes that, to be consistent with its other decisions, the Alabama Supreme Court would have to uphold the integrity of Exclusion 9 in the Pan American policy as against the contentions made by defendants.

  4. Morgan v. Continental Cas. Co.

    382 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that averments based upon speculation, surmise, and conjecture without evidence are insufficient to create a disputed issue of fact in opposition to a motion for summary judgment

    Those Regulations establish that a pilot is not a passenger and does not lose his status as such because he remains responsible and in command of the aircraft even though he undertakes some momentary task other than actual operation of the aircraft.LeBreton v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 223 La. 984, 67 So.2d 565 (1953); cf. Curtis v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., 60 Tenn. App. 204, 445 S.W.2d 661 (1968). See generally 14 C.F.R. ยงยง 1.1 and 91.3 (Aeronautics and Space).