Pervangher v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court
Pervangher v. Union Casualty & Surety Co., 85 Miss. 31 (Miss. 1904)
Calhoon

Pervangher v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.

Opinion of the Court

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The demurrer is to the whole declaration, which contains-three counts. We all agree that the second count is a good one,, and that therefore the judgment sustaining the general demurrer must be reversed. Where an accident from external means results in internal injuries, we think it sufficient to so-charge, without specifying the particular organ hurt, and it is not every strain that will take the injury out of the protection of the policy. This would depend on the facts; and if the first and third counts should be made more definite as to the circumstances of the injury, the proof might develop a case warranting a recovery under them. 1 Cyc., 248, et seq.j 1 Ency.,. *35294; Horsfall v. Insurance Co., 63 L. R. A., 425, and notes; Insurance Co. v. Selden, 78 Fed. Rep., 285 (24 C. C. A., 92); Insurance Co. v. Gerisch (Ill.), 45 N. E., 563 (54 Am. St. Rep., 486); Cobb v. Accident Ass’n, 96 Ga., 818 (22 S. E., 976); Feder v. Traveling Men’s Ass’n (Iowa), 70 Am. St. Rep., 212, and note on pages 215, 216; and especially Paul v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 112 N. Y., 472 (20 N. E., 347; 3 L. R. A., 443; s.c., 8 Am. St. Rep., 758, and-the full note,to it on page 757, et seq.). The rulings on the various kinds of accidents arising from the acts of the assured will be found in these authorities.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name
Mazara Pervangher v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Accident Insurance. Construction of policy. Internal injuries. Pleadings. Where an accident from external means results in internal injuries the case is within the terms of an accident policy insuring “against loss effected solely, directly, and independently of all other causes, by bodily injuries .sustained through external, violent, and accidental means,” and it is unnecessary in a suit upon the policy to specify in the declaration the particular organ hurt.