Legg v. United Benefit Life Insurance

WILSON,- J.—

From a judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover disability benefits on a policy of health and accident insurance, plaintiff

*

The only question for determination is whether the trial court committed prejudicial, error, in permitting defendant to introduce testimony of a compromise settlement between plain

[229]

tiff and a third party, which compromise and settlement arose out of the same accident that was the basis of plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits against defendant.

Plaintiff was injured as she was attempting to board a streetcar. The policy upon which she seeks recovery provides for monthly payments of $100 for total disability. Defendant admitted that she received injuries while the policy was in force and paid her $100 for one month’s total disability. The nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries were the basis of the controversy between the parties which led to the instant action.

Defendant introduced into evidence without objection two documents signed by plaintiff which were statements to the transit company relating to her injuries. Plaintiff concedes this evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes and as an admission against interest. She raises no question with regard to the introduction of those documents but contends the jury was prejudiced by the following testimony which was admitted over her objection:

“Q. You later settled your controversy with the L. A. Transit Company, did you not? A. I did, yes. . . .

“Q. Will you tell the court and the jury just how much you received in payment of that claim you had for damages ? A. I received a thousand dollars.”

The evidence as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries is conflicting and it is her contention that from the above testimony the jury could have inferred (1) she was trying to collect twice for the same accident, and (2) if there had been a disability, it must have ended at the time of the settlement. Defendant agrees the evidence may have been prejudicial but asserts it was admissible for the purposes of impeachment and as an admission against interest.