Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Etc. v. John Lawson

377 F.2d 525

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-05-25
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from a judgment awarding appellee the face amount of a policy payable if the insured is “totally disabled by bodily injury or disease and presumably will be permanently prevented thereby for life from pursuing any occupation for remuneration or profit.” Appellant contends that the district court erred in construing this language as allowing recovery if appellee showed inability to engage in any occupation similar or comparable to that of his occupation as a flight engineer, or any occupation for which he was capable of fitting himself within a reasonable time which would allow him to earn an income rising to the dignity of a livelihood. The parties agree that we are to look to the law of the State of Minnesota. In Wright v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Etc. v. John Lawson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. LAWSON,377 F.2d 525(9th Cir. 1967)
The MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellant, v. John
LAWSON, Appellee.
No. 21265.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 25, 1967.
Page 526
F. Lee Campbell, Karr, Tuttle, Campbell, Koch Granberg, Seattle, Wash., Dougherty, Rumble Butler, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

Ralph C. Hove, Arnold J. Barer, Wettrick, Toulouse, Lirhus Hove, Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before BROWNING, DUNIWAY, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from a judgment awarding appellee the face amount of a policy payable if the insured is "totally disabled by bodily injury or disease and presumably will be permanently prevented thereby for life from pursuing any occupation for remuneration or profit."

Appellant contends that the district court erred in construing this language as allowing recovery if appellee showed inability to engage in any occupation similar or comparable to that of his occupation as a flight engineer, or any occupation for which he was capable of fitting himself within a reasonable time which would allow him to earn an income rising to the dignity of a livelihood.

The parties agree that we are to look to the law of the State of Minnesota. In Wright v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co.,195 F. Supp. 524, 525-526 (1961), affirmed312 F.2d 655(8th Cir. 1963), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota construed the same policy as the trial court in this case construed it. "The district court's considered view as to the law of the state in which it sits is entitled to great weight, and will be accepted on review unless shown to be clearly wrong." Bellon v. Heinzig,347 F.2d 4, 6 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1965). Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the view of Minnesota law stated by the District Court of the District of Minnesota was "clearly wrong."

Appellant also challenges the trial court's finding that appellee was unable to fit himself for any occupation which would allow him to earn an income rising to the dignity of a livelihood. Taking the record as a whole we cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.