Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Dodd v. Union Indemnity Co.
Dodd v. Union Indem. Co., 32 F.2d 512 (4th Cir. 1929)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1929-05-02
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. We decided upon the former'appeal in this case [21 F.(2d) 709] that the holder of an accident insurance policy was not entitled to recover for an accident which he had suffered because he had made material misrepresentations of fact in his application to the insurance company. He had failed to state, when questioned on the subject, that on six prior occasions he had collected indemnity for accident or sickness under a similar policy. The judgment of the District Court was therefore reversed and the ease remanded. At the second trial in the. lower court, there was no substantial change in the testimony in regard to the statements in the application, or their materiality to the risk, and consequently the District Judge directed a verdict for the company.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dodd v. Union Indemnity Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 10 opinions
DODD v. UNION INDEMNITY CO.,32 F.2d 512(4th Cir. 1929)
DODD v. UNION INDEMNITY CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond; D. Lawrence Groner, Judge.
Action by Abner Francis Dodd against the Union Indemnity Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Hiram M. Smith, of Richmond, Va. (Pollard Smith, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.
Frank H. Atwill and Alexander H. Sands, both of Richmond, Va. (Sands, Williams Lightfoot, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WADDILL, Circuit Judge, and SOPER and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We decided upon the former appeal in this case [21 F.2d 709] that the holder of an accident insurance policy was not entitled to recover for an accident which he had suffered because he had made material misrepresentations of fact in his application to the insurance company. He had failed to state, when questioned on the subject, that on six prior occasions he had collected indemnity for accident or sickness under a similar policy. The judgment of the District Court was therefore reversed and the case remanded. At the second trial in the lower court, there was no substantial change in the testimony in regard to the statements in the application, or their materiality to the risk, and consequently the District Judge directed a verdict for the company. The proceedings in this court on the second appeal have taken the form of a reargument of the point fully considered and decided in our former opinion. Under these circumstances, we think that opinion is the law of the case and should not now be reviewed. Linkous v. Virginian Ry. Co. (C.C.A. 4th) 242 F. 916, certiorari denied245 U.S. 649,38 S. Ct. 10,62 L. Ed. 530; First National Bank of Oxford v. Old Dominion Trust Co. (C.C.A. 4th) 284 F. 128; Priester v. Southern Ry. Co. (C.C.A. 4th)6 F.2d 878; Thompson v. Maxwell,168 U.S. 456,18 S. Ct. 121,42 L. Ed. 539; Illinois v. Illinois Central R.R. Co.,184 U.S. 77,91to 93,22 S. Ct. 300,46 L. Ed. 440; Messinger v. Anderson,225 U.S. 436,32 S. Ct. 739,56 L. Ed. 1152.
Affirmed.Page 513
Page 570