United Services Life Insurance Company v. Joan Flores Delaney
358 F.2d 714
5th Cir.
1966
Check Treatment

*1 714

the statute of limitations. 26 U.S.C.A.

6501(a). opinion of are the that We governed by

the case Pilliod is Lucas v. Co., 297, 245,

Lumber 281 U.S. 50 S.Ct (1930).

74 829 It L.Ed. thеrein held was that of the statute limitations did not deficiency bar the of assessment a tаx where, case, inas ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍the instant the return Davis, Antonio, Tex., Boyle, Bond San requirements failеd to meet the of the Wheeler, Gresham, Gregory, San & Davis by petition- statute. The return filed the Antonio, counsel, appellant. for Tex.’ of signed ers in the case beforе us not was Antonio, Shelton, Jr., Horace P. San ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍by either of them. Tex., appellee. for judgment The of the Tax Court will be TUTTLE, EN BANC Chief before opinion. affirmed on its GEWIN, Judge, BROWN, WISDOM, and

BELL, COLEMAN, THORNBERRY, and Judges. Circuit CURIAM. PER judgmеnt rendered The District Court beneficiary appellee, the in case for this her оn of life insurance under a contract UNITED SERVICES LIFE INSURANCE night on a who killed husband was while COMPANY, Appellant, flight аirplane training ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍army which in an v. piloting the and in which he was he was DELANEY, Joan Appelleе. Flores panel occupant. of this A sole divided No. 19531. In affirmed. United Services Life court Cir., 1962, Delaney, Company Appeals United States 5 Court of surance v. Fifth Circuit. The was considered 308 F.2d 484. case rehearing. 31, on motion for We en banc March 1966. considerа further then abstained from appel the matter and instructed tion of declaratory judgment a lant to institute proceeding for in the Texas courts State coverage, single of the a determination Life the case. United Services issue in Cir., Delaney, Comрany 5 Insurance v. 1964, F.2d 483. Certiorari was de 328 by case, companion covered the niеd in opinion. Life In Paul Revere the same Company Bank National v. First surance 935, Dallas, Administrator, 377 U.S. in 1335, ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍The subse 12 L.Ed.2d 84 298. S.Ct. declaratory judgment in action quent Bexar, by appellant Texas in stituted jurisdiction of for lack dismissed was Supreme Texas af of Court and the Life Insurance United Services firmed. Gewin, Judge, Circuit dissented. Tex., 1965, Delaney, 396 Company v. was on the 855. The affirmance S.W.2d pending ground still that the case was Texas State and federal courts in the аuthor constitutional not have courts did opinion. a advisory For ity an to render proceedings in history of the state court *2 715 Judge (dissenting): GEWIN, In cases, Circuit Life Paul Revere two rеlated Bank Company First National surance v. my in the in dissent For reasons stated Dallas, Administrator, Paul and St. in Com Life Insurance of Revere case Paul Price, Mercury Compаny see Insurance v. Dallas, Bank in pany First v. National day those opinions in this rendered our date, 359 Administrator, on this decided 641, F.2d 74.1 359 and F.2d 359 cases. majority opinion 641,1 to the F.2d adhere case, originally and United opinion Court in this District rendered of the The Company panel court by our v. De of Life Insurance the Services affirmance the 1962) (5 considering from F.2d laney, resulted 308 484. this case Cir. first controlling. authority deemed a Texas respectfully I dissent. Casualty Company v. War- Continental 164, 1953, 762. ren, 254 Tex. S.W.2d 152 distinguished deci- our in that case We today cа'se. Paul Revere of in the sion nothing there, out- we find As was true ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‍language exclusionary оf the the side logically in- the policy on bears which coverage am- to an sо as create tended language. exclusionary biguity in the any ambiguity in be found must Thus of ex rel. UNITED STATES Amеrica It language itself. of the exclusion the RAMBERT, “ Isaiah Petitioner- * * * except coverage excludes Appellant, resulting traveling pas- aas death from v. operated senger and on an aircraft owned YORK, Respondent- NEW The STATE OF a by or as United Govеrnment the States Appellee. passenger passenger air on a schedulеd 264, No. Docket 28672. speci- regularly offered between service * * * airports fied Aрpeals of United States Court Second Circuit. “passen- Revere held in Paul that We ger” not did as used in a similar context Argued 8, 1966. March pilot. of Mrs. a The include husband 1, April Decidеd 1966. Delaney pilot plane in of was the the the reasons which he his death. For met Judgе dissenting opinion in stated of the appearance of this

Wisdom on first the

case, 484, 488, it 308 F.2d and because distinguished

cannot be from оur decision Revere, appellant’s mo- today in Paul

of rehearing granted,

tion for decision the is September 26, is of this 1962 court of

vacated, judgment the of the District reversed,

Court is is re- and the case proceedings

mand for in- not further

consistent herewith. rehearing prior granted;

Motion for vacated;

decision re- reversed and

manded. Judge Judges Thornberry

1. Cameron was a of tbe ions. member and Coleman panеl originally hearing 308 become of the this ease. have members court since oрinions Judges they partici- F.2d He is now deceased. the abstention and 484. U.S.C.A, by Hutcheson, Rives, pate 46(e). and Jones have become virtue of 28 § Judges opin- Senior the since abstention