Provident Life Insurance v. Fennell
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Obartuch v. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. (7th Cir. 1940)
- Crawford v. Abraham Lincoln Life Insurance (Ill. App. Ct. 1934)
- Dunken v. &198tna Life Ins. Co. (Tex. App. 1920)
- Christophersen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Mich. 1917)
- Burr v. Equitable Life Ins. (9th Cir. 1936)
- Schaefer v. Peninsular Casualty Insurance (Mich. 1934)
- Union Trust Co. v. Chicago National Life Insurance (Ill. App. Ct. 1932)
- Hollingsworth v. Liberty Life Insurance (Mich. 1928)
- Britton v. . Insurance Co. (N.C. 1914)
- Noble v. Kansas City Life Insurance (S.D. 1914)
- Britton v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (N.C. 1914)
- Taylor v. Supreme Lodge of Columbian League (Mich. 1903)
- Parker v. Bankers Life Ass'n (Ill. App. Ct. 1900)
- Berliner v. Travelers' Insurance Co. (Cal. 1898)
- Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. Sibley (Ill. App. Ct. 1895)
- Farmers & Merchants Ins. v. Nixon (Colo. App. 1892)
- Farmers & Merchants Ins. v. Nixon (Colo. App. 1892)
- Standard Accident Insurance v. Friedenthal (Colo. App. 1891)
- Standard Accident Insurance v. Friedenthal (Colo. App. 1891)
- STANDARD ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. FRIEDENTHAL. (Colo. App. 1891)
- Farnum v. Phoenix Insurance (Cal. 1890)
- Dircks v. German Insurance (Mo. Ct. App. 1889)
- Home Insurance v. Gilman (Ind. 1887)
- Mutual Life Insurance v. French (Ohio 1876)
- Teutonia Life Insurance v. Anderson (Ill. 1875)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was a suit brought by Mary Fennell against the Provident Life Insurance Company, upon a policy issued upon the life of her deceased husband. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment and the defendant appealed.
It is now urged for appellant, that the court erred in not permitting the defendant to give in evidence the application of deceased for the insurance, showing that his occupation at' the time of the insurance was that of a switchman on a railway, and to prove in connection with this evidence, that he was killed while performing the duties of a brakesman. The insurance was against death by accident. The evidence offered, if admitted, would have been immaterial. The representation was merely that the occupation of the deceased was then that of a switchman, the truth of which is not denied, and did not amount to a covenant that he would do no act not connected with such occupation, or that he would not •engage in any different occupation. N. E. M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Whitmore, 32 Ill. 223 The policy was not against accidents occurring in the course of his occupation, but against accidents generally, and provided expressly in what particular cases the company was not to be liable, but did not provide that it would not be liable for death occurring from a cause not connected with the occupation of the assured, or that he should not change his occupation. If the company had desired to protect itself from all liability, except for accidents occurring in a particular occupation, it should have so expressly stipulated.
That it did not understand its own policy as only covering so narrow a ground is evident from the fact, that it did expressly guard itself against liability for death or injury incurred through war, riot, or invasion, or while the assured was in a state of intoxication, or from riding races, dueling or fighting.
It is also objected, that the court did not permit the company to prove the premium had not been fully paid. The policy acknowledged the receipt of payment, and we have decided in a case not yet reported, that this statement of a policy could not be controverted.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.