disability claim in Oklahoma

1983Co., 577 P.2d 899 (Okl.1978) involved a disability claim; the problem in McCorkle v. Great Atlantic Ins.

1983Co., 577 P.2d 899 (Okl. 1978) involved a disability claim; the problem in McCorkle v. Great Atlantic Ins.

2003In Matter of Death of Hendricks, 1991 OK 52 , 812 P.2d 1361 , we said the following: The resolution of this contention is pointed to in the early case of Parsons v. State Industrial Court, 372 P.2d 27 (Okl.1962).

2003In Matter of Death of Hendricks, 1991 OK 52 , 812 P.2d 1361 , we said the following: The resolution of this contention is pointed to in the early case of Parsons v. State Industrial Court, 372 P.2d 27 (Okl.1962).

1983Co., 637 P.2d 583 (Okl.1981) was the unreasonable and malicious refusal to pay under the terms of the policy; and Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins.

1983Co., 637 P.2d 583 (Okl. 1981) was the unreasonable and malicious refusal to pay under the terms of the policy; and Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins.

1972The Court applied the rule set forth in Walder, supra, to a case wherein the petitioner claims that a statement made by him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) could not be used to impeach his credibility.

1972The Court applied the rule set forth in Walder, supra, to a case wherein the petitioner claims that a statement made by him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) could not be used to impeach his credibility.

1972Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment. “ * * * [Tjhere is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” The Walder holding was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971).

1972Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment. “ * * * [Tjhere is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” The Walder holding was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971).

1939The facts in this case are similar to those in the case of Atlas Life Insurance Co. v. Zellner, 173 Okla. 254 , 47 P. 2d 151 , in which it was shown that the disease which'incapacitated the plaintiff and caused the disability for which the claim was made had manifested itself prior to the date the policy was issued.

1939The facts in this case are similar to those in the case of Atlas Life Insurance Co. v. Zellner, 173 Okla. 254 , 47 P. 2d 151 , in which it was shown that the disease which'incapacitated the plaintiff and caused the disability for which the claim was made had manifested itself prior to the date the policy was issued.

1930Of course, upon the failure to pay the premium note when due, such failure was equivalent to a failure to pay the premium, and would work a forfeiture of the policy (Underwood v. Security Life & Annuity Co., 108 Tex. 381 , 194 S. W. 585 ), except for the provisions of the disability clause above quoted.” The foregoing case is authority to the effect that installment payments of annual premiums are to be regarded as premiums when considering a policy which provides that the annual premiums may be paid by installments, and notes are given therefor, as was done in the present case.

1930Of course, upon the failure to pay the premium note when due, such failure was equivalent to a failure to pay the premium, and would work a forfeiture of the policy (Underwood v. Security Life & Annuity Co., 108 Tex. 381 , 194 S. W. 585 ), except for the provisions of the disability clause above quoted.” The foregoing case is authority to the effect that installment payments of annual premiums are to be regarded as premiums when considering a policy which provides that the annual premiums may be paid by installments, and notes are given therefor, as was done in the present case.

1919Co. v. Donahue, 54 Okla. 294 , 153 Pac. 819 : “A provision in an insurance policy requiring proof of loss to be furnished the company within a certain definite time is waived by the company denying liability within said time upon other grounds than failure to furnish proof of loss.” The sister of the plaintiff also informed the company as to the condition of the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff demanded of the state agent upon two occasions to fix the policy, to give him the benefit of the total disability clause, the state agent replied that he did not come within the provision of said claus

1919Co. v. Donahue, 54 Okla. 294 , 153 Pac. 819 : “A provision in an insurance policy requiring proof of loss to be furnished the company within a certain definite time is waived by the company denying liability within said time upon other grounds than failure to furnish proof of loss.” The sister of the plaintiff also informed the company as to the condition of the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff demanded of the state agent upon two occasions to fix the policy, to give him the benefit of the total disability clause, the state agent replied that he did not come within the provision of said claus