{
  "id": 1627440,
  "name": "Mary E. MYERS, Administratrix v. MUTUAL of OMAHA INSURANCE CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-02",
  "docket_number": "5-6014",
  "first_page": "135",
  "last_page": "137",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 135"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "484 S.W.2d 879"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "297 S.W. 847",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ark. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724680
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/174/0783-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.W. 2d 640",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 Ark. 1040",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1432069
      ],
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/187/1040-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2477,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.859,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31783802839470565
    },
    "sha256": "d8b9b2654d3e6b879369954f62ceae75efc2dc7e05829a343885ade23670e393",
    "simhash": "1:bcdc0e61cad939a9",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary E. MYERS, Administratrix v. MUTUAL of OMAHA INSURANCE CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nThis suit was instituted to recover sick benefits under an insurance policy executed by appellee to Cecil L. Myers. The insured having died prior to trial, his widow, as administratrix, was substituted as plaintiff. The court sitting as a jury absolved appellee, stating that the notice of sickness was not timely made, and that there was no substantial evidence of insured\u2019s mental or physical condition as would excuse him from timely filing proof of loss.\nCecil L. Myers purchased the policy in 1927. In 1963 he was suffering from emphysema and diverticulitis and was incapacitated from working. Mrs. Myers discovered the policy late in 1969 and within a few months filed claim. Payments for the years preceding the notice were denied. Suit was brought to recover monthly benefits for the five years next preceding the filing of suit.\nThe policy provides that notice of sickness shall be given the insurer within ten days after the commencement of disability therefrom. Affirmative proof of loss is required to be furnished within ninety days after the loss. The final pertinent provision requires strict compliance with the stated conditions as a condition precedent to recovery. The identical requirements were present in the policy considered in Business Men\u2019s Assur. Co. v. Selvidge, 187 Ark. 1040, 63 S.W. 2d 640 (1933). We construed the stipulations as being \u201creasonable and valid.\u201d\nAppellant argues for exception to the notice requirements and cites a line of cases which hold that incompetency waives the notice requirements. We have so held in a number of cases involving insanity. For example, Pfeiffer v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 174 Ark. 783, 297 S.W. 847 (1927). The trial court in the case before us found as a fact that \u201cthere was no substantial evidence of insured\u2019s mental or physical condition that would excuse him from filing a proof of loss.\u201d Mr. Myers\u2019 doctor was asked if the ailments affected Myers\u2019 mind, to which he replied \u201cnot his mind necessarily.\u201d On this point we are severely handicapped by appellant\u2019s failure to abstract Mr. Myers\u2019 testimony. His deposition, taken several months prior to trial, was introduced in evidence.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Terral, Rawlings, Matthews \u00e9r Purtle, by: Harlan A. Weber, for appellant.",
      "Smith., Williams, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Max C. Mehlburger, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary E. MYERS, Administratrix v. MUTUAL of OMAHA INSURANCE CO.\n5-6014\n484 S.W. 2d 879\nOpinion delivered October 2, 1972\nTerral, Rawlings, Matthews \u00e9r Purtle, by: Harlan A. Weber, for appellant.\nSmith., Williams, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Max C. Mehlburger, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0135-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 161
}