Hinds v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
155 A.2d 721 (1959)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
David Hinds (plaintiff), a minor, was the beneficiary of his father Donald’s life-insurance policy. The policy entitled Hinds to $9,000 in the event of Donald’s death and an additional $9,000 if the death was caused by violent, external, and accidental means. Donald’s body was found in his kitchen with a gunshot wound to the head. There was no sign of a struggle. Evidence indicated that the gun was pressed to Donald’s temple when it was fired and that the path of the bullet was horizontal, right to left through Donald’s head. Donald’s wife sued John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (the insurance company) (defendant) on Hinds’s behalf to recover $18,000 under the policy. At trial, Hinds offered no evidence that the death was not suicide but largely relied on the presumption against suicide. The jury returned a verdict in Hinds’s favor for the full $18,000. The insurance company appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Webber, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
