171 S.E. 894 | W. Va. | 1933
Plaintiff complains of judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of defendant.
The action is based upon a provision in an accident-health insurance policy stipulating for payment to the insured of $500.00 for "permanent loss of the entire use of both hands, or both feet, or one hand and one foot," caused by illness.
Plaintiff suffered a paralytic stroke while the policy was in effect resulting, admittedly, in permanent loss of the entire use of his right hand and the greatly impaired use of his right foot. The issue, therefore, is whether he has lost the *403 entire use of his right foot within the meaning of the policy. He has no sensation in his right leg or foot and can walk only with the aid of a cane by dragging the limb which serves merely as a partial support.
Plaintiff contends that the provision in question should be liberally interpreted, in his favor, by holding that the loss of the practical use of a hand and foot entitles him to its benefit. Defendant, on the other hand, insists that the provision must be literally construed, and that, so construed, an affirmance of the trial court necessarily follows.
We have adopted a liberal construction, favorable to the insured, of general disability clauses. "A disability clause in a life insurance policy entitling the insured to benefits if he 'shall become totally and permanently disabled, either physically or mentally, from any cause whatsoever, to such an extent that he (or she) is rendered wholly, continuously and permanently unable to engage in any occupation, or perform any work for any kind of compensation of financial value during the remainder of his (or her) lifetime' does not mean a state of absolute helplessness, but means the inability of the insured to engage in practical manner in useful work, whether in his accustomed vocation or another. Total disability is a relative term. Each case must be considered on its own facts."Hayes v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America, (W.Va.)
In Johnson v. Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co.,
In In re Meley,
In the light of the foregoing authorities and the rule of liberal interpretation in favor of the insured, we are of opinion that the issue should have been decided by the jury.
The judgment, therefore, is reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial granted.
Reversed and remanded.