Cited by

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ]” Following that decision, and through the years, this court has constructed an elaborate framework in defining the words “total disability.” In Green v. Schmahl, 202 Minn. 254, 256 , we again repeated that “although an injured person may be able to perform some parts

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; Green v. Schmahl, 202 Minn. 254 , .

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; Carson v. New York Life Ins.

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; and Lorentz v. Aetna L. Ins.

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; Green v. Schmahl, 202 Minn. 254 , .

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; 14 R. C. L. 925, § 102; 2 Cooley, Briefs on Insurance (2 ed.) 965.

Co. 187 Minn. 462, 465 , , an insurance case which possibly goes to the extreme limit in sustaining a fact finding of permanent total disability (the injury and extent of resulting disability weaker by far than those here), the cases are reviewed.

Co. 187 Minn. 462 , ; and that the apparent purpose of the parties to an insurance policy is entitled to great weight in determining the meaning of the language used, Maze v. Equitable L. Ins.