Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
37. For which party, if either, should the court direct a verdict?
The woman and the insurance company have both moved for a directed verdict.
At trial, the woman testified that she had, in a timely manner, placed a stamped, properly addressed envelope containing the premium payment in the outgoing mail bin at her office. The woman's secretary then testified that every afternoon at closing time he takes all outgoing mail in the bin to the post office. The insurance company later called its mail clerk to testify that he opens all incoming mail and that he did not receive the woman's premium payment.
A woman's car was set on fire by vandals. When she submitted a claim of loss for the car to her insurance company, the insurance company refused to pay, asserting that the woman's policy had lapsed due to the nonpayment of her premium. The woman sued the insurance company for breach of contract.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Under Rule 301, the rule on presumptions, the woman has presented sufficient evidence that the envelope containing the premium payment was mailed. The rule does not require that the woman have personal knowledge that the envelope reached the post office. The insurance company then has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption that the envelope was received. Because the insurance company has produced such evidence, the presumption is taken out of the case and it is up to the fact finder to determine whether the insurance company received the payment.
B is incorrect. Under Rule 301, once the woman provides evidence that the envelope containing the premium payment was mailed, the insurance company has the burden of producing evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that the envelope was received. That does not mean, however, that if the insurance company does provide such evidence it is entitled to a directed verdict. Instead, the presumption is taken out of the case and it is up to the fact finder to determine whether the insurance company received the payment.
C is incorrect. It is true that the woman's evidence has triggered the presumption that the envelope containing the premium payment was received. But under Rule 301, the insurance company then has the burden of producing enough evidence to rebut the presumption. Here the insurance company has done so. Consequently, the presumption is taken out of the case and it is up to the fact finder to determine whether the insurance company received the payment. Therefore, it would be error to grant a directed verdict for the woman.