Cory v. Woodmen Accident Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Norris v. New York Life Ins. Co.

    49 F.2d 62 (4th Cir. 1931)   Cited 11 times
    In Norris, the Fourth Circuit, applying applicable state law, considered the question of whether the insured's death was accidental when the insured was shot and killed while trying to dissuade his intoxicated brother from shooting another man.

    In other words, an insured may not voluntarily assume the risk of that which it is apparent or should be apparent to him, acting as a reasonable man, would result in injury or death. Unless a reasonable man could reach a different conclusion as to a probable result of his conduct, there is no question for the jury. In a number of decisions this point has been thoroughly discussed: Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Distretti, 159 Tenn. 138, 17 S.W.2d 11; Cory v. Woodmen Accident Company, 253 Ill. App. 20; Id., 333 Ill. 175, 164 N.E. 159; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Seaver, 19 Wall. 531, 22 L. Ed. 155; Carroll Case (C.C.A.) 143 F. 271, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 657, 6 Ann. Cas. 955; Casualty Co. v. Harroll, 98 Tenn. 591, 40 S.W. 1080, 60 Am. St. Rep. 873; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph (C.C.A.) 78 F. 754; Lovelace v. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America, 126 Mo. 104, 28 S.W. 877, 30 L.R.A. 209, 47 Am. St. Rep. 638; U.S. Mutual Accident Ass'n v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100-121, 9 S. Ct. 755, 33 L. Ed. 60. See, also, 1 C.J. 510, § 339; 1 C.J. 446, § 115. This court has had occasion to construe similar clauses in insurance policies.

  2. Espinoza v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

    103 N.E.2d 149 (Ill. App. Ct. 1951)   Cited 7 times

    These facts tend to distinguish this case from the cases of Williams v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 271 Ill. App. 532, where the insured suddenly went insane, struck and beat his wife, broke up furniture, seized a rifle from his room, and was killed while in the act of shooting his wife and police officers who had been called; and Zimmerman v. Southern Surety Co. (Mo.App.), 241 S.W. 95, and Hutson v. Continental Casualty Co., 142 Miss. 388, 107 So. 520, where the insureds were innocent bystanders who were killed by intoxicated persons where no quarrel preceded the shooting and no cause or motive for the acts whatsoever appeared from the testimony. Plaintiffs also cite the case of Cory v. Woodmen Accident Co., 253 Ill. App. 20, reversed in 333 Ill. 175. The Cory case and the therein cited case of Hutton v. States Accident Insurance Co., 267 Ill. 267, far from supporting plaintiffs' position, are practically decisive against it. In the latter case, the court said (p. 269):

  3. Jones v. Keilbach

    32 N.E.2d 985 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941)   Cited 8 times

    We believe, however, that this case furnishes an appropriate opportunity to restate a ruling which has long been established in our Appellate Courts, and which should be adhered to by litigants in the presentation of objections with reference to instructions in this court. As was stated by the court in Cory v. Woodmen, Accident Co., 253 Ill. App. 20, at page 35, "Complaint is also made that there was error in the giving of some of the instructions for the appellee, and in modifying some of the instructions given for the appellant, but the instructions are not set out in the brief and argument, but merely referred to by designated numbers. The questions involved are therefore not properly before us for consideration.

  4. Zorger v. Hillman's

    4 N.E.2d 900 (Ill. App. Ct. 1936)   Cited 13 times
    In Zorger v. Hillman's, 287 Ill. App. 357, we refer to a number of Appellate Court decisions in which similar language was used, but continuing we said: "we have examined in the abstract the instructions of which complaint is made and find no reversible error in this respect."

    It has been repeatedly held that instructions of which complaint is made should be set out in full in the brief, followed by definite and clear reasons supporting the alleged errors incident thereto. General Platers Supply Co. v. L'Hommedieu Sons Co., 228 Ill. App. 201; Harris v. Piggly Wiggly Stores, Inc., 236 Ill. App. 392; Spencer v. Chicago N.W. Ry. Co., 249 Ill. App. 463; Roy Iverson Co. v. U.S. Lloyds, Inc., 251 Ill. App. 150; Cory v. Woodmen Accident Co., 253 Ill. App. 20; In re Estate of Wood v. Tyler, 256 Ill. App. 401. However, we have examined in the abstract the instructions of which complaint is made and find no reversible error in this respect.

  5. Colby v. Great American Casualty Co.

    272 Ill. App. 273 (Ill. App. Ct. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    The witness George H. Braasch, vice president of plaintiff in error, on cross-examination testified that they had denied liability on the claim of Doctor Colby prior to the institution of the first suit. In Cory v. Woodmen Accident Co., 253 Ill. App. 20, this court said: "It is well settled that a denial of liability dispenses with the necessity of filing proofs of death." The testimony of the witness and the action of plaintiff in error since the institution of the first suit show a positive denial of liability on this policy, and constitute a waiver of the requirement of the statute respecting notice of the illness and the awaiting of the 60-day period after submitting proofs of loss before bringing suit.