*1 824 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ADKINS HOME 17, 1984, Lansing July July Submitted No. 68912. Docket . Decided 1, 1985. Life Insurance Com- was insured Home Adkins’s life James $6,500. policy a pany The included double the amount in died a indemnity death. James Adkins as clause for accidental accident, injuries automobile Home suffered in an result of Adkins, $6,500 paid Kay widow and to Linda James’s Life $6,500 pro- pay beneficiary, to as but refusеd additional indemnity ground clause on the that a vided the double indemnity coverage provision double excluded attempt from the com- where death resulted commission that James a taken after the accident showed mit crime. Tests operat- Since he was blood alcohol content was Adkins’s .22%. content, Home Life blood alcohol his vehicle with .22% operating vehicle in violation of that Adkins was reasoned during of a crime. he died the commission law and that against Kay Home Life Insurance Linda Adkins filed suit alleging Company of contract in Court breach Jackson Circuit seeking payment indemnity clause of the under the double Falahee, J., court, grаnted policy. a directed Charles J. appeals leave Life. Plaintiff verdict favor of Home granted. Held: application presumption of a 1. The trial court’s .10% plaintiff content constitutes intoxication denied alcohol present presumption opportunity that a her case. The appli- intoxicatiоn is blood alcohol content constitutes .10% actions, application of that cable to' civil and the proof plaintiff. impermissibly shifted the burden of 2. that would invoke double What constitutes crime [1] [2-6] Division of Construction and Am Jur courts or particular other inference of intoxication from 1253. Am Jur 2d, present 2d, jurisdiction considering opiniоn among judges Automobiles and clause References Insurance 269 et application system. § for Points Highway of statutes ALR3d seq. on same same 748. Traffic Headnotes question, is specified percentages creating ambiguous. court or § presumption or et evidence that among seq. 4 ALR4th other v Home Life Co Adkins Ins indemnity ambiguous. prоvision exclusion That must there- strictly fore be construed the insurer. Such construction leads to the conclusion a reasonable would not think that while under the influence constitute a *2 crime the sufficient to invoke exclusion. The exclusion does not apply. Danhof, C.J., only in concurred the result based on the holding that the word "crimes” in thе exclusion clause is therefore, and, ambiguous apply. the exclusion does not He presumptions question would not address since the court’s ruling disposes on the "crimes” issue of the case. Reversed and for remanded trial. J., Jh., Simon, C. W. dissented. He would hold that the word ambiguous "crimes” as used in the exclusion not clause is and correctly Further, that the circuit court construed that clause. he relying would hold that the circuit in statutory presumption that a with a .10% inappropriate alcohol content is intoxicated was and harmless Appeals sponte. for the Court of to redress sua He would affirm grant the circuit of court’s a directed verdict in favor of defendant.
Opinion of the Court Intoxicating Presump- — — Liquors 1. Blood Alcohol Content — Driving — tions Civil Actions Under the Influence Intoxicating Liquor. statutory Michigan in the Vehicle Code that a greater operator .10% blood alcohol content a vehicle constitutes intoxication does not civil cases or person solely of a for under thе influence of (MCL liquor 257.625[2], 257.625a[3][c]; 9.2325[2], 9.2325[l][3][c]). — Ambiguities — — 2. Insurance Contracts Construc- Judicial tion. ambiguous An liberally insurance contract which is must be construed in favor of the insured. Ambiguities. — 3. Contracts
A ambiguous may contract reasonably when its words ways. understood in different J. — — Ambiguities — 4. Insurance Contracts Judicial Construc- tion. Ambiguous language will be construed for op Opinion Court however, insurer; the absence the insured parties rights on the insurance rest
ambiguities, indulge written, in forced courts should contract liability upon company the insurance so as to cast construction has not assumed. which it Unambiguous Language. — — Contracts 5. Insurance its should be Unambiguous in an insurance meaning. ordinary plain and — — Judicial Cоnstruction. Contracts 6. Insurance meaning ordi- policies read should be with Insurance nary give laymen would to their words. (by Rappleye, D. Riccardo Wilkins & Arcaro Arcaro), plaintiff. Klaasen, Nelson,
Stanton, Bullen, Moilanen & (by A. and William P.C. Charles Nelson Braaksma), for defendant. *3 Danhof, C.J., E. Jr. and D.
Before: Holbrook, and C. JJ. W. Simon, Jr.,* appeals by leave D. E. J. Plaintiff Holbrook, granted in favor from the verdict entered directed Ad- of James of defendant. Plaintiff is kins, widow acci- as automobile who died a result an by defendant dent. Mr. Adkins’s life was insured a $6,500. The also included in the amount of indemnity De- the double clause for accidental death. pay paid plaintiff $6,500 refused to fendant but provided $6,500 double additional indemnity taken clause. A level test blood alcohol shortly from Mr. Adkins аfter his death revealed percent. the morn- his level 0.22 On alcohol to be accepted trial, Mr. of the date for set applied evidence, alcohol level into Adkins’s blood presumption 0.10 occurs at that intoxication only percent, and, when the court learned that * sitting Appeals by assignment. judge, on the Court оf Circuit Adkins Home Life Ins Co op Opinion the Court presumption evidence to rebut the of intoxication testimony plaintiff, be the who was not present at the accident that resulted her hus- granted death, band’s defendant directed verdict. trial court reasoned that while intoxi- cated constituted crime sufficient to invoke de- exclusionary provides clause, fendant’s paid benefits are not losses sustained while committing a crime. appeal plaintiff
On contends that error occurred granting agree. of the directed verdict. We applied presumption The trial court percent blood alcohol 0.10 level of constitutes in presumption toxication. We do not find this to be applicable in civil actions. Due to the trial court’s acceptance presumption, plaintiff of this was not opportunity present to her case. While judge willing oppor the trial tunity to afford her an presumption to rebut the intoxication, we application find that of this was in impermissibly сorrect and shifted the burden of proof plaintiff. proving The burden of intoxica belonged tion of the decedent to defendant. The permitted place defendant would be evidence,1 however, level of decedent into prove by the burden would defendant expert testimony evidentiary and other means what the bloоd alcohol level meant. Defendant not entitled to the benefit of the proceedings. created statute for criminal 9.2325(1). 257.625a; MSA' 9.2325(l)(3)(c), 257.625a(3)(c); See MCL *4 provides which for the of intoxica- tion.
"(3) Except a prosecution relating solely to a Hubenschmidt Shears, Opinion op the Court 625(2), alcohol in the the amount of of section
violation alleged by shown chemicаl time at the driver’s blood blood, urine, or breath shall person’s analysis of the following presumptions: give rise to weight "(c) or more the time If there was at blood, presumed it shall be defendant’s in the intoxicat- under the influence of was that the defendant liquor.” these has said Legislature to a relating solely not arise do 625(2). appears action to be This violation § that: provides section which solely within that "(2) not, or whose blood person, A whether licensed alcohol, weight of shall not or more contains 0.10% highway place open other upon a vehicle or operate the including designated general an area public, vehicles, 257.625(2); the statе.” MCL parking of within 9.2325(2). to have find reversible Accordingly, we presumptions. of these occurred admission believe The trial court and defendant also was since blood alcohol level decedent’s greater he intoxicated and percent, than 0.10 trigger this constituted a crime sufficient that: life exclusion policy’s provided сoverage this "Benefits are not under or is caused from, directly or any indirectly, wholly loss results ** * committing or partly, * * attempting to commit a crime agree with this. What constitutes We cannot ambigu- is crime that would invoke exclusion ous. ambiguous
"An must be insurance contract which *5 Adkins v Home Life Ins Co 829 Jr., J. Dissent liberally construed in favor the insured. Foremost Waters, Life Ins Co 599, App 604; 88 Mich (1979).” St Co, Usher v Pаul Fire & Marine Ins 688 Mich 126 443, (1983). App 447; 351 NW2d "A ambiguous contract is said to be when its words may reasonably be understood in ways.” different Raska Michigan, v Farm Bureau Mutual Ins Co of 412 Mich (1982). 362; 314 NW2d Certainly option place defendant had the exclusion its insurance that would have coverage excluded for losses sustained while under drugs the influence of or intoxicatiоn. 13 ALR2d 987. opinion
In our
a reasonable
would not
think that
while under the influence would
constitute
crime sufficient to invoke this exclu-
sion. Mindful of the rule that an insurance
strictly
should be
insurer,
construed
we conclude that this exclusion would not
the instant action. Celina Mutual Ins Co v Citizens
App
Co,
315, 320-321;
Ins
136 Mich
Reversed and remanded for trial. (concurring). Danhof, C.J. I concur the result only holding ambigu- based on the that "crimes” is ous, apply. and, therefore, exclusion does I necessary "pre- do not believe it is to address the sumptions” question, holding our since with re- spect effectively disposes to the "crimes” issue this case. (dissenting). respectfully W.Simon, Jr.,
C. J. I dissent. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in an auto- disputed рlaintiff’s mobile accident. It is not decedent was driver of the automobile time of the accident or that blood tests subse- Simon, C. W. plaintiff’s performed
quently decedent showed at the time. alcohol content of a blood had the construction case turns on of this The outcome following clause of policy: *6 coverage, for provided are "Benefits from, directly or or is caused any loss which results * * * committing wholly partly, by or indirectly, * * *.”
attempting to commit a crime ambigu- language of an is the insurance If the and ous, it insured will be construed v insurer. See Van Zanten National the Casualty (1952). 28, Co, 36-37; 52 581 333 Mich NW2d ambiguities,
However,
in the absence
rights
parties
on
contraсt
of the
rest
the insurance
indulge
written,
in forced
and
should not
courts
upon the
so as
cast
construction
company liability
Kozak
it
not assumed.
which
has
App 777,
DAIIE;
782;
904
v
79 Mich
262 NW2d
(1977). Unambiguous
be
should
meaning.
plain
ordinary
v
and
Wertman
its
Michigan
Liability
508, 510;
Co,
Mutual
(1934).
policies
be
255
read
418
Insurance
should
NW
meaning
laymen
ordinary
with
give
v Preferred
to their words. Bowman
Co,
531, 547;
Risk
Ins
Mutuаl
348
434
unambiguous.
plain
Its
word “crime” meaning
ordinary
violation
includes
serious
imposed.
punishment may
law for which
English
Heritage Dictionary of the
See American
(1970),
Language,
p
Driving
313.
often
intoxicated
while
leading
offense,
is a
to serious conse-
serious
quences.
layman
any ordinary
I cannot
how
see
appreciate that
intoxi-
сould fail to
while
crime. I
the circuit
cated is a
would hold
correctly
exclusionary
clause.
construed
831
Adkins
Life
v Home
Ins Co
jurisdictions construing
from other
Cases
analo
gous policy clauses to reach similar results include
Flannagan
Co,
v Provident Life & Accident Ins
(CA 1927);
4,
F2d 136
Order of United Commercial
(CA
Tripp,
v
Travelers
America
63 F2d 37
1933); Barker v Califоrnia-Western States Life Ins
Rptr
(1967);
Co,
252 Cal
2d
61 Cal
(Fla
Co,
v
Sasloe Home
Ins
Life
So 2d 867
1982);
App,
Undertaking
Geddes & Moss
& Em
balming
Co,
Co v First National Life Ins
167 So
(La
1936),
App,
Hospi
Mainer American
(Tex
App,
Co,
&tal
Life Ins
The court trial relied оn the person tion a that with a blood alcohol content of intoxicating or more 0.1% liquor is under the influence grant to verdict for directed defendant plaintiff acknowledged when that defendant would plaintiff’s be able to show that decedent’s blood plaintiff alcohol content was conceded 0.22% going produce any that she was not to witnesses testimony support whose a conclusion that her decedent that, was not intoxicated. It is clear plaintiff timely objection had made a to use of the statutory presumption action, in a civil defendant any by Would have been able to avoid error substi- by Jr., J. presumption. testimony tuting expert For deposition example, file contains the trial court explained: toxicologist, who aof concentration blood-alcohol regard to the "With achieving any person .22, that my opinion it is high as severely will be concentration high a blood-alcohol that the where that extent by alcohol affected safely operate a motor longer properly and no can care, prudence, ability that the same with vehicle that possess.” normally person would by the trial find I would therefore statutory presumption relying on the inappropriate for us to redress harmless and be sponte. sua seriously majority’s analysis of this issue is The 257.625a(3); majority points to MCL
flawed. 9.2325(1X3), 1982 PA as amended provides: relating solely to a violation in a 625(2), "Except amount driver’s the of section alleged analysis chemical as shown the time urine, blood, give rise to person’s or breath shall presumptions: following "(a) by weight or less If there at the time was 0.07% blood, presumed it shall of alcohol the defendant’s the influence of not under the defendant was intoxicating liquor. "(b) in excess of but If there at the time 0.07% was by weight of alcohol in defendant’s less than 0.10%
blood, ability presumed that defendant’s it shall be impaired provisions operate vehicle within was intoxicating consumption 625b due to the of section liquor. "(c) weight more If there at the time *8 blood, presumed it shall
of alcohol the defendant’s influence of intoxicat- under the defendant was added.) liquor.” (Emphasis Adkins v Home Life Ins Co Jk., C.W. majority concludes that inapplicable are here this because action was a prosecution 625(2), § for violation 257.625(2); 9.2325(2), provides: which person, not, "A whether or licensed whose blood alcohol, contains or more weight of shall not operate a upon vehicle a highway place or other open to general public, including designated an area vehicles, parking within the state.” course,
Of this was a civil action to collect allegedly policy, 625(2). benefits due not a criminal § for violation of prosecution, Moreover, any even if this was such a in consideration of the harmless. The evidence before the trial court showed, presump- without consideration of the plaintiffs 625(2), tion, that decedent § had violated operated because it showed that he had a vehicle highway on a while his blood alcohol content wаs more than 0.1%. pointed
It should be
out that the accident out of
plaintiffs
place May
claim arises took
majority
1979. The
on which the
relies was added
In Groth v *9 Jr., J. (1976), Court examined the lan- presumptions the then-current created 9.2325(1) con- guage 257.625a; MSA of inapplicable were cluded that County Bernier v Board of also See civil actions. Supp County Ionia, F581 Roаd Comm’rs 1983). (WD based on Mich, Groth was 71, 73-75 People Keen, 573; 242 NW2d 396 Mich presump- (1976), which the Court held prosecution for man- in a inadmissible tions were may slaughter. cases not Groth and Keen arising amendment, those because the 1982 after qualifying re- on were based decisions 1982 amendment. from the section moved distinguishable may here, here becausе be Groth sought to show use defendant plaintiff’s but intoxicated decedent was crime that he had committed intoxicating liquor. the influence vehicle under pApp Compare 443 fn 1. Groth, analysis Judge The confusion Holbrook’s appellate why should issue illustrates not raised issues novel reluctant to address ap- argued not briefed court and the trial peal.
I would affirm.