Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

49

subject, the Ritter case, the United States Supreme Court denied recovery for two reasons: (1) It is not contemplated that payment should be made in such a case. (2) Even if the insurer agreed to pay in case of suicide, such an agreement would be contrary to public policy. Though, in the Ritter case, the insurance was payable to the personal representative of the insured, a later Federal decision extends the principle to insurance payable to a beneficiary other than the insured.

The rule in the Ritter case has been repudiated by the great weight of authority, particularly in cases in which a third person has been designated as beneficiary. However, it is generally agreed that the insurance cannot be recovered if the insured takes out insurance with the intention of committing suicide then present and proceeds to accomplish his purpose. The defense in such a case is based on fraud.50

87. Suicide excepted. As soon as the life irsurance companies realized the effect of the rule which prevails in the absence of a stipulation in reference to suicide, many of them inserted express provisions excusing the company from all liability in case of the death of the insured "by suicide," "by his own hand or act,” “by self-destruction," or, if he "takes his own life." Though the courts declared such a provision to be perfectly valid, many of them rendered it almost worthless to the insurance companies by holding that suicide committed while the insured.

49 Ritter v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 169 U. S. 139. 50 Smith v. Society, 123 N. Y. 85, 9 L. R. A. 616.

was insane was not excepted under these phrases.51 It was an easy task for the attorneys for the plaintiff, in an action to recover the insurance, to convince the jury that the insured was insane when he killed himself. Suicide is frequently the result of an unbalanced mind.

Furthermore, a liberal rule in favor of the insured was adopted by most of the American courts in determining that insanity existed. For example, where the plaintiff's husband took poison which caused his death, the United States Supreme Court held that there could be no recovery if the insured possessed his ordinary reasoning faculties when he killed himself, but that a recovery would be allowed if his reasoning faculties were so far impaired as to prevent ability to understand the moral nature of his act, even though he intended to kill himself, or if the suicide was the result of an insane and irresistible impulse.52

88. Exception of suicide, sane or insane.-Many insurance companies finally stipulated that they should not be liable in case of suicide, whether the insured was sane or insane when he killed himself. This provision was also held to be enforcible and left but one door open for the recovery of insurance in cases in which the insured might be regarded, in a popular sense, as having committed suicide. This avenue of escape lies in a strict construction of the term "suicide." What is suicide? If one, by mistake, drinks poison for coffee, and dies as a conse51 Blackstone v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 74 Mich. 592, 3 L. R. A. 486.

52 Life Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. 580 (U. S.).

quence, has he committed suicide? Or if he becomes a raving maniac and beats his brains out in the strong ward, has he committed suicide?

In one case, the insured was found dead, with a bullet through his brain. There seems to have been no dispute but that the fingers of the insured pulled the trigger that started the bullet on its journey. It was left to the jury to determine whether or not the insured had mind enough to know that, if he fired the pistol ball through his head, it would be likely to produce death.53

Though this decision appears to stretch to the utmost the rule allowing a recovery, the essential idea appears sound. Unless there was an intention to destroy one's life, popular usage of the word "suicide" would justify us in saying that suicide did not occur. Accordingly, many courts have held that there can be no suicide without a knowledge on the part of the insane person of the physical nature of his act. However, many decisions to the contrary have appeared. Apparently, for the purpose of extending the exemption of the insurance company to cases wherein the insane person is unconscious of the physical nature of the act of self-destruction, certain companies have inserted in their contracts. the following clause: "If the member shall die by any means or act which, if used or done by such member while in possession of all natural faculties, would be deemed self-destruction," the certificate shall be void. Such a provision has been upheld.5*

53 Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Daviess' Exrs., 87 Ky. 541, 9 S. W. 812. 54 Cotter v. Royal Neighbors, 76 Minn. 518, 79 N. W. 542.

89. Death at the hands of justice. If the insured suffers capital punishment, can the beneficiary recover the insurance? In such a situation the insurance company is not liable, if there is a clause excepting recovery in case of death at the hands of justice, or if no stipulation on the subject appears. Probably, it is against public policy for the insurer to agree, expressly, to pay in this case. Few cases on this point have arisen, because few people who are electrocuted or hanged through legal process have sufficient means or foresight to insure their lives. In the leading case on the question, it was contended before the United States Supreme Court that the insured was not guilty and should not have been convicted. The court declared that such an argument is without merit and that a miscarriage of justice is a risk which it would be against public policy for insurance companies to carry.

90. Death in violation of law.-Certain life insurance policies contain a clause declaring the policy void in the event that the insured shall die "in known violation of any law of these states or of the United States, or of any other country which he may be permitted under this policy to visit or reside in." It is generally agreed that suicide is not included as death in violation of law. Though attempts to commit suicide, or suicide at common law may be regarded as criminal, they are not violations of law for this purpose.

It is generally agreed that the law violated must be a criminal law to excuse the insurer, though it is

55 Burt v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 187 U. S. 362.

difficult to see how the word "criminal" can be read into the plain provision of the policy. A Missouri court has gone farther and has intimated that the policy is not avoided unless the insured is in the act of committing a felony.56 However, the decision is based on the rule of construction which requires a clause to be construed in the light of the company it keeps. Other exceptions closely associated with the one in question referred only to felonies. However, a later decision in Missouri denied recovery where the insured had committed a crime which was less than a felony, though the court intimated that every misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace will not be considered a violation of law which will avoid the policy.57

In innumerable cases, the insured has been killed while committing an assault, or while retreating from a fight. In the former case, recovery is generally denied, though not in the latter case, if the retreat was made with the intention of withdrawing from the combat.

Death not caused by violation. In one city in the United States, the home of a religious colony, it is said to be criminal to smoke on the street. Suppose that the insured while smoking as thus forbidden, walks across the street, falls accidentally into a manhole and is killed. Has he met death in violation of law? It is well settled that, for this purpose, he has not. For example, where the insured was killed while carrying a concealed weapon, the insurance

56 Harper's Admr. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 18 Mo. 109. 57 Wolff v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 5 Mo. App. 236.

« ZurückWeiter »