Prudence Life Insurance Co. v. Wooley

Derwood Wooley (plaintiff) was a 54-year-old farmer who also raised chickens. A high-school graduate, he had also worked as a carpenter, truck driver, and equipment operator on construction jobs. Wooley purchased a health and accident insurance policy that provided disability benefits from Prudence Life Insurance (Prudence) (defendant). A year later, Wooley had a heart attack. Prudence paid disability benefits for two years, and then stopped on the grounds that Wooley was not totally disabled. The policy defined total disability as complete inability of the insured to engage (1) in his regular occupation or (2) in an occupation he could do according to his education, training, or experience. Prudence then exercised its option to decline to renew the policy because Wooley was not totally disabled but had ceased to be active in his business. Wooley claimed that Prudence owed him $5,260 as of the date of the trial. A jury found in favor of Wooley, finding him totally disabled. At trial, sufficient evidence justified the jury’s finding that he could no longer work in his farming and chicken-producing business. But there was also sufficient evidence that he could work in other professions. The jury had been instructed only that if Wooley was prevented from working in his business, he was totally disabled under the policy. The jury was not instructed to consider whether Wooley might work in another occupation, an instruction Prudence had requested but was denied. Prudence appealed.