The Insurance Monitor Volume 64 baixar o livro de graça

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 Excerpt: ...means. While the result was not foreseen, the causes producing that result were not accidental. It is well in line with the cases above cited sustaining the majoirty rule, which we adopt. This rule affords a reasonable interpretation of the contract. The position here taken is not in conflict, as we view it, with the opinion of our court in Insurance Co. vs. Bennett, 6 Pickl. 256, when the fact of that case are properly considered. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the next point, raised by demurrer, namely, that if the injury may be said to have resulted through accidental means, yet it did not so result, "directly, independently and exclusively of all other causes." The learned Chancellor sustained the demurrer in this respect also, and there is strong authority for his position. But inasmuch as the foregoing is decisive of the case, and the question of proximate cause, and what contributing facts would be too remote to be considered as entering into the accidental means producing the injury, must depend upon the fact of each case, discussion on that point is omitted. Affirmed.--Stone vs. Fidelity & Casualty Co. Compulsory Canadian Investments for Life Companies In the Chronicle Montreal, issue of February 25th. there appears under this heading a clear analysis of the recent enactment concerning compulsory investments. "The section of the Act affecting the British and American life companies operating in the Canadian field reads as follows: --"'5. After the fifteenth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, any deposit of securities in respect of the business of life insurance required or permitted by The Insurance Act, 1910, to be made prior to the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, with ...