106 S.W.2d 336 | Tex. App. | 1937
The controlling question in this case is whether sunstroke constitutes accidental means within the meaning of a life insurance policy rider granting double indemnity, in case the insured "should sustain bodily injury solely through external violent and accidental means" resulting in death. The trial was to the court without a jury and the judgment was in favor of appellee, the wife of insured and beneficiary in the policy. The insurance company has appealed.
The facts in the case are virtually on all fours with those in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Funderburk (Tex. Civ. App.)
There are two lines of authority upon this question; but, to quote from the note in 17 A.L.R. 1197: "It is held by the weight of authority, and apparently the better reasoned cases, that a sunstroke, suffered by one unexpectedly, is within the protection of an accident policy insuring against bodily injuries sustained through external, violent, and accidental means."
This note collates and digests the authorities upon the subject. We are in full accord with the above view expressed by the author. Among the citations is the Texas case of Bryant v. Casualty Co.,
Subsequent notes in A.L.R. reports bringing the cases down to date will be found in Vols. 61, p. 1197, and 90, p. 1387.
The last note is under a case by the federal Supreme Court (Landress v. Ins. Co., *337
It might be noted that injury or death from sunstroke is quite generally held to be compensable under Workmen's Compensation Laws. See O'Pry v. Cas. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 1 S.W.2d 590, 61 A.L.R. 216; also A.L.R., notes in Vols. 83, p. 236; 53, p. 1085; 46, p. 1219; 40, p. 402; 16, p. 1039; 13, p. 979.
The adjudicated cases which will be found under the above citations so thoroughly treat the subject that we feel its further discussion on our part would be without useful purpose.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.