{
  "id": 3017809,
  "name": "Robert L. Finley, Appellee, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Finley v. Federal Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "66",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 66"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31488766333481216
    },
    "sha256": "d55f922d418212844801d152325c4287cb4e5b1fcb2e3b13d79930cb0fc67c2e",
    "simhash": "1:7e798b11fa09e63a",
    "word_count": 807
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert L. Finley, Appellee, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Insurance, \u00a7 601 \u2014 what is presumption against self-destruction. \"While, in an action to recover on an insurance policy insuring against injury resulting from external, violent and purely accidental means, the burden is on plaintiff to show that the injury was accidental and not self-inflicted, he may invoke the presumption that men do not ordinarily take their own lives or inflict injury upon themselves, this presumption not being conclusive however.\n2. Insurance, \u00a7 667* \u2014 when shown that injury was accidental. In an action to recover on an accident insurance policy, where there was no eyewitness save plaintiff and he testifies that the injury was accidental, such evidence, which is fortified by the presumption against one\u2019s purposely injuring himself, is sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff, even though defendant introduces evidence that plaintiff was in straitened circumstances and in need of money to settle a serious charge against him, and that the injury was caused by a gun which he had borrowed a few days before, stating that he intended to go hunting at noon, whereas it appeared that he had no hunting license.\n3. Insurance, \u00a7 686* \u2014 when question whether injury was accidental is for jury. In an action to recover on an accident policy, where the evidence as to whether the injury was accidental is conflicting, the question whether it was or was not of that character is for the jury.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1411* \u2014 when finding based on conflicting evidence not disturbed. In an action to recover on an accident policy where the jury are correctly instructed in regard to the effect of falsity in warranties or material representations by plaintiff, and the evidence as to the truth of the representations by plaintiff, which are claimed to be false while conflicting, tends to sustain the finding of the jury, their verdict will not be disturbed.\n5. Insurance, \u00a7 1177* \u2014 what evidence is inadmissible to show that representations in accident policy that habits were correct is false. In an action to recover on an accident insurance policy, it is not proper to admit evidence that on two different occasions, one several years before plaintiff applied for a policy and the other a few months before, plaintiff had made improper proposals to two of his female patients, for the purpose of showing that plaintiff\u2019s representation in his policy that his habits of life were correct and temperate was false.\n6. Insurance, \u00a7 690* \u2014 when instruction on liability on accident policy, to which defense of falsity of answers in application is made, is not erroneous. In an action to recover on an accident insurance policy in which defendant sets up the falsity of plaintiff\u2019s answer, in his application, to the question whether his habits were correct and temperate, an instruction at plaintiff's request that if the jury believe \u201cfrom the evidence\u201d that defendant issued the policy, that the policy was based on the application, that the answers bj plaintiff to the questions in the application \u201cwere true at the time they were made,\u201d and that plaintiff \u201clost his foot by accident as charged in the declaration,\u201d the verdict shall be for plaintiff, is not subject to the objection that it confines the question of plaintiff\u2019s habits to the day the application was made, especially where plaintiff\u2019s habits were several times referred to in defendant\u2019s instructions as \u201cat the time the application for the policy was made,\u201d nor is it subject to the objection that it assumes that an accident happened.\n7. Appeal and ekbob, \u00a7 1241 \u2014 when error in instructions may not he complained of. One cannot complain of error in the adverse party\u2019s instructions when a like error appears in those given at his own request.\n8. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1241* \u2014 when error may not he complained of. One cannot complain on appeal of an instruction given at his own request.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. A. Atkinson, A. C. Bollinger and J. Fred Gilster, for appellant.",
      "William M. Schuwerk and William H. Schuwerk, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert L. Finley, Appellee, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. Lotus Beeneettiei!, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1917. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 5, 1918.\nRehearing denied and opinion modified and refiled June 22, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Robert L. Finley, plaintiff, against Federal Life Insurance Company, defendant, to recover on \u2022 a policy of accident insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, defendant appeals.\nC. A. Atkinson, A. C. Bollinger and J. Fred Gilster, for appellant.\nWilliam M. Schuwerk and William H. Schuwerk, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative. Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0066-01",
  "first_page_order": 120,
  "last_page_order": 122
}
