*1 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. CORA I. ACCIDENT BUSINESS MEN’S ANDRUS Appellant. AMERICA,
ASSOCIATION OF Two, Division June 1920. Statute.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL Suicide LAW: Revised 1909, declaring Statutes shall not a defense suicide he actions insurance, policies of life valid is a constitutional statute. and though Corporation. Liberty a statute Even 2. -: Contract: liberty abridges and of contract were in that unconstitutional fit, right make contracts as sees an individual to such corporations. The not for invalid as to would that reason be may prescribe cor- which a State and conditions terms business, empowered poration may organized to transact be kind, designated may altogether corporation of a and it forbid a doing company, instance, accident insurance business an in the State. Policy. The Public Accident Insurance: Suicide As Defense:
3. -: policy propriety concern the of a statute are not matters Legislature determine a statute for the whether courts. is declaring insurance no action an to an on defense public premium policy places inimical suicide and public morals. welfare and to Company: by Suicide Issued 4. ACCIDENT Assessment INSURANCE: organized company an assess- If an As Defense. as pertaining company assessment com- ment statutes them, panies cannot avail and issues a not authorized liability itself, policy, exemption from a suit organized companies. provided by an If it is them foreign company, com- or whether it be a domestic assessment agrees pay pany, no death is in in case of and the amount it upon persons dependent upon wise holding collection an contracts, committed defense that similar policy; for such not available in a suit on suicide is plаn. contract on the assessment is not a An Suicide: Sane: Accidental Means: 5. -: While Admission. allegation petition “ex- death the insured came to his through proximate, clusively contributing of all other causes to-wit, drinking means, external, and accidental violent allegation but an carbolic acid” is admission TERM, APRIL Accident Association. accidental; tending to show death evidence intentionally conclusive of deceased is not carbolic acid took intentionally fact, proven even took it it were that he *2 proоf the time. would not be that was sane at Under conclusive he circumstances, death was accidental the issue whether his jury, proper was one for the instructions. -: insured’s was 6. -: Accident: If the death Intentional. by unanticipated, produced unexpected, means .unintended exactly produced accidental; was if the act and the were result actor, it accidental. with the intention of the was not accordance fully sane, of the effect act in If the insured conscious his was poison, consequently taking inflict to deаth intended pursuance himself, that the death which he inflicted in then though he took carbolic intention was not accidental. But even accidental, acid, insane; were to death if he resultant was sane, intentional, he for if insane the time have must at been incapable forming an intention. -: -: Intentional: Instruction. Where there is evidence 7. taking by the death acid with that insured’s was caused carbolic error, suicide, committing in a the intention it is suit on policy, simply jury defense that is “no accident instruct the to jury and be- that insured committed unless the find thе contemplated insured lieve from the evidence suicide policy.” proper application for would be time he made if it limited the suicide while the to death self-inflicted intentionally insane; if is not accident- but suicide committed
al. Age: Policy. in- If contract Old-Line -: Insured’s relating in- authorized surance was not one statutes plan, companies doing fact the assessment business on surance sixty-one years made at the time he insured was policy. application defense for the insurance no suit is provides “no Assessment Insurance Act 6956 of the doing corporation under this article shall issue a certifi- business sixty any person policy upon iswho more than cate or provided age,” for one but was not article,” company “doing was not business under this article necessarily apply does not section for the plan. plan other than some Pleading. pleading ad- An is 9. EVIDENCE: abandoned Abandoned alleged; evidence, fact not conclusive of the missible in but weighed any like admission. to be E. E. Porter- Jackson Circuit Court. —Hon. Appeal from Judge. field, MISSOURI. OF
Reversed and remanded. appel-
Solon T. & Brown Gilmore Gilmore lant.
(1)
committed
An
the insured
allegation
insuring
does not
under a policy
state a cause of action
Defend-
means.
against death
from accidental
resulting
evidence,
objection
ant’s
introduction
any
the reason
facts sufficient
state
petition did n.ot
have
action, should,
therefore,
constitute
cause of
45;
been
Co.,
Brunswick v. Ins.
213 S. W.
sustained.
v.
Co.,
Fid. &
Logan
114;-Laessig
v.
Cas.
S.
Travelers
Ins.
127 U.
272;
McConkey,
Co.
T.
Tuttle
;
Whitlatch v.
149 N.
Casualty
*3
120
652;
132
v.
U. S.
Iowa,
Crandall,
Co.
527;
v. Ins.
Mich.
Co.,
592;.
Blackstone
Co.
74
Insurance
v.
Mo.
Mo. 328.
Sydnor,
88;
v.
in-
temptation
holders
is an
incitement and
in
therefore,
is,
surance
to commit
Mo.
30,
2,
4
Art.
Constitution.
1,
violation
Secs.
ques-
in
(8) The section
v. Ins.
169.
Ritter
139
Co., U. S.
Constitution,
that,
tion
requires corporations
Mо.
violates
Art.
Sec.
in such
conduct their business
infringe
general
being of the
well
manner as to
(9)
242
339.
The section
Railroad,
State.
v.
Mo.
State
question
Constitution,
that,
of the
violates Article 3
infringe
attempt
Legislature
upon the
it
powers
Ziegler
58
Railroad,
594;
Ala.
of the courts.
v.
plaintiff
(10)
v.
Dev. Law. 1.
The
5
Henderson,
Hoke
having
proofs
that her
her
of loss
admitted
husband
sixty-one
thereby
bound
old, is
absence
testimony
positive
her
in-
statement
; n
App.
K. & 190 Mo.
57
L.,
correct.
v.
Castens
Stevens v.
App.
(11)
673.
Ins.
Mo.
Co.,
The
powers
R.
not within
de-
Vincent Andrus was
null and
S.
issue,
Sec.
R.
and is
void.
fendant
City
Co.,
1;
v. Ins.
Bank,
Cass Co.
App.
App.
Froehley
Ins.
;
respondent.
G. Smith for
James
(1)
sued
“old
makes
the contract
(cid:127)
policy provides
insurance.” The
for a
line
fixed
*4
paid
delivery
sum to
the time
definite
be
the
at
of
of
paid quarterly
policy
a
definite
and
and
sum'to be
fixed
provision
policy
is no
thereafter. There
made
said
for
variation,
any
those terms.
no
of
There is
reference
any by-laws
policy
of
order,
made
nor is
any
any
or
reference made to
assessment
collections of
any
any
premiums
from
or
other
othеr member of
.sums
Toomey
Supreme
sec. 6950;
R.
1909,
S.
order.
v.
Lodge,
129; Aloe v. Life
K.
Mo.
P.,
Assn.,
147
164 Mo.
Casualty
Logan
Co.,
I Arti- Article of Section 4 Section 30 of II, II, of Article II, cle and 5 Article Constitution XII, Section of of Missouri. of death,
Plaintiff of introduced the proofs and she swore that know how husband was she old her didn’t at the time of his death.
The of association defendant offered its articles framed under III, Chapter 119, the provisions of Article Chapter Eevised now Ee- 61, Statutes Article III, vised Statutes 1909.
There was a count in but it is petition, second stated that was and dismissed the trial proceeded first count. terms and the state- in ments application, of the company character shown its articles association the business and transacted, will facts, be considered treat* questions of the several case. There ing arising for judgment plaintiff the amount sued for appealed. defendant I. Appellant attacks the constitutionality Eevised suicide shall Statutes which declares insurance, be a defense in suits this court to examine that statute asks reasons with cer- advanced its conflict alleged statute, tain provisions Missouri, as Constitution mentioned the answer. The is that it is argument fight abridges contract; unconstitutional because it the constitutional guaranty right liberty includes right make such contracts the individual sees fit.
If the appellant argument sound as applied individuals it would not corporations necessarily apply which are creatures statute. This court has said the case Kansas Star, of Julian City l. 66: “The Legislature artificial dealing with creaturеs of the law in certain may, make particulars, thém impose class themselves, and conditions them OF MISSOURI. *6 Association. Accident page 67:
imposed upon further, And individuals.” impose may its own issuing in charter “The State by corporation accepted is bound when terms and the terms.” upon conditions prescribing and terms State in may may organized em corporation be and
which a powered merely the ordi exercises to transact business power sovereign nary It for could state. vested doing companies business bid insurance accident powerless to altogether, do which would be Missouri regard activities persons. limit the It can to natural corporation prescribe conditions and way a the manner and may under which it transact could business a applied been determined This has to individuals. not,be support argument be distinction of the so often unnecessary. persons [N. tween artificial natural is Apple Riggs, 243, l. 254; W. Life Ins. v. 203 U. S. Co. App. gate 82-3; l. c. Hous Co., Ins. Travelers’ ton v. Pulitzer 249 Mo. l. c. Pub. length by
Appellant argues at statute, de- claring in- an action on an suicide to be no defense to premium policy, plаces in- surance a on suicide is public public imical welfare and morals. In argument appellant merely propriety attacks the of the statute —a consideration which does not concern court. It is within the discretion this Legislature propriety determine of an enactment may upon and decide whether it have beneficial a effect subject applies, to which it and that determination is questioned by determining to be this court in validity of the statute. appellant company
II. The describes itself as form- plan provisions ed the assessment within of Ar- Chapter ticle III, 61, Revised Statutes 1909. That raises question as to whether the suicide statute, apply policies Section 6945,- would Defense^ Section 6956, whether Revised Statutes limiting of a the issuance to one under TERM, APRIL company. this applicable con- defines Section 6950, Revised Statutes where one tract plan insurance degree manner payment “any benefit per- dependent upon an assessment the collection of sons holding similar contracts.” bene fraternal has been court hеld which
fit contracts association, it issues pro but depend upon do collection of assessments old- words, vide for the payment fixed sums —in *7 [Toomey v. line bound contracts. by such —is v. Aloe Supreme 138-9; K. Lodge 147 Mo. l. c. P., 130, v. Fidelity Mut. McDonald Assn., Life 164 Mo. l. c. Life cases).] l. 618, c. 627 (citing (cid:127) In case last is cited said the amount be that to it paid in case of death “does not depend manner any upon the persons collection an assessment hold- upon ‘ similar ing contracts, that is stát- the test under our assessment', utes as to whether or is not a company r company.” And further on 628: it page “For devolves (cid:127) upon the defendant not to show that is an only assess- ment but company, that policy as issued is such a as an policy is company issue, authorized ' otherwise is by bound its contract is estopped plead is the contract ultra vires/’ n a If company organized under Article III of the Chapter Insurance issues policy authorized by1 it can not article, upon itself, avail such suit policy, the exemptions provided liability for such com panies. v. Modern [Ordelheide Brotherhood, 268 Mo.]. 346-7
In case the to the deceased provides for the payment a fixed assessment of six dollars the fifteenth day of March, September June, Decem- and. ber year. each The benefit to be paid ais . definite fixed sum of three thousand dollars upon the loss performance and the of the conditions relating to proofs of loss. .There is nothing indicate that the payment of the benefit is in any manner or degree
28a Mo.—29 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. Accident Association^
'dependent per of assessments collection holding sons therefore similar contracts. It plan contract defined the assessment as [Williams statute. 70, l. Ins. provides statute, 6945, suicide
shall no suicide be defense that insured committed contemplated made the unless he application time he at II in Article
for insurance. That section Chapter 61, entitled Accident Insurance.” “Life and Section relating found in Revised Article III Statutes providing Insurance, Fraternal Benefit after reports, proviso: for annual has this foreign companies hereby “And are all declared subject required provi- to be to, to сonform to the sions of Sections 6945, 6940of the Revised governed Statutes of Missouri 1909, and and controll- provisions ed all the in said sections contained: Pro- always, nothing vided, herein contained shall sub- ject corporation any doing business under this article any provisions requirements general excépt distinctly insurance laws of this State, herein provided.” set forth and may noted that the time of the issuance *8 policy which this had under consideration court in the supra,
Ordelheide case, Mo. 339, Re- Section vised Statutes 1899, then in force, contained this clause: governed by
“Such associations shall be this act exempt provisions and shall be from the of insurance pay laws corporation of this State, shall not or passed apply tax, and no law hereafter shall they expressly designated them unless therein.” appears substantially And' that clause the same ' form in Revised Statutes 1909. question The -determined in that case was not exemption whether the clause in Section 6959 relieved societies of the restriction in Section fraternal benefit policy 6945,-but whether the issued was one to which exemption- applies, and it was held the was such suicide was no defense applied. because Section 6945 TERM, 1920. APRIL Accident Association. ‘‘all proviso applies quoted The from Section foreign companies.” The defendant company. City The Kansas Court case is a domestic applicable Appeals has that the suicide statute held companies by whether to all foreign, language Sec- domestic or account ' quoted As- [Gates tion Aid above in italics. App. Anderson Missouri Bene- sociation, 740-741.] fit 199 S. W.
The in this the assess- case is one plan ruling ment reason, and for that under the in the an case, Ordelheide suicide is no defense to action iton provided is an within the terms accident policy. by appellant plain- point
III. The made is that not recover because-it is tiff should admitted the insured committed suicide while sane and death Accidental † therefore, the result of “accidental “ not> Suicide. means.” presented plead- It is well to note the issue as ings supported by allegation evidence. The petition came, is that the insured “Ex- death, clusively contributing proximate, all other causes through external, violent and accidental means, to-wit, drinking allega- carbolic acid.” This is not allegation tion of is an ac- death drinking cidental in the of carbolic acid. The answer alleges drinking that the insured “died as a result carbolic acid with suicidal intent.” point appears evidence in various important
documents, the most of which ad- letter company by plaintiff’s dressed to the attorney after wherein, accept the death refusеs to check sent company repayment assessments which had *9 paid by repayment been the insured. The was offered ground on the beyond that the insured was anof years. insurable limit of 60 [Sec. 6956, R. S. The letter contains this statement: “In reference to the OF MISSOURI. liability in no there would he could
clause, ‘Even if we circumstances account of the manner and this case on” his Andrus came to Mr. R. Y. we concede death,’ his by him poisoning self-administered acid death carbolic purpose ending com- words in other life, his for the State of this mitting the laws suiсide. However under an accident claim under defense on suicide is not a policy. demand we renew our Therefore, ’’ you payment policy. the full body coroner who viewed certificate of The judgment proof appears loss and states poisoning to, the cause of death was “carbolic acid knowledge self- my acid carbolic was best administered.” proofs Jennings of loss: F. stated
One C. poisoning.” acid “Cause of death. Carbolic attending physician made same statement. appears manner as to the in the evidence This is all that prove not death. This does of the insured’s cause conclusively took the carbolic acid with insured committing The admission the intention suicide. tending attorney be evidence the letter of the would intentionally, but it would be con- he show that took not proven that he took it fact, of that and if it were clusive intentionally was not be conclusive that would sane at time. n Pro- This court in the case Lovelace Travelers’ quoted a number of definitions tective only re- from accident, dictionaries, but ported in a states. In none number of them cases so an “accident” defined include intentional act. produced, unexpected, un- result is a means Where unanticipated, accidental; intended and if the but produced exactly and the what result are was ac- act intention cordance with the of the actor was ac- cidental. plaintiff
In only this case the can recover if death produced by accidental If the means. fully sane, conscious the effect of his act, and consci- *10 TERM, APRIL y. Association. Accident
Andrus upon the ously thеn himself, inflict death intended to pursuance intention in that inflicted death which he was not accidental. Acci Standard Brunswick v.
In case the recent court 213 W. Insurance S. Co., 278 dent construing length a great in at the authorities reviewed here. consideration the one under clause similar holding in that may following from the be deduced rules case: insane
(a) while committed deceased suicide If beneficiary removes and Section could recover his the defense of suicide. purpose of
(b) sane, If while for the insured, poison, intentiоnally his committing swallowed meaning consequent within death was accidental policy. c. [l. (c) shown that the insured swallowed After was poison question was arose the act whether presumption from the arises intentional, or accidental point, evidence the absence life, love presumption un and this obtained it was accidental that explanation til adduced act evidence was l. 172.) point (d) explana- evidence If there was poison then tion manner was taken, which presumption question ceased to exist and it became accidental death, of fact whether the was self-inflicted, conclusively intentional. Unless the shows evidence intentionally that the was sane and insured took own might declare as that court a matter law so question intentional, that the death was for the was a jury, produced, say evidence was from such as' wheth- insured .was sane or insane the time, er the and wheth- inflicted-intentionally the death was er sane or acci- dentally.
(e) prove The burden defendant to such circumstances the death under was intеntional and the burden accidental; is, would be prove case of defendant, that the insured OF MISSOURI. was sane and committed the took which his life with act committing the intention of suicide. may there be added in the Brunswick case indicating
noWas insane evidence indicating there was considerable evidence cyanide *11 potassium took of with the intention of commit ting question suicide. It held was the jury and the jury. case should be submitted [See the Reynolds Casualty also Co., l. Scales v. National Life & Accident Ins. S. W. l. c. produced, ques-
In case, this under the evidence jury tion should have been submitted to the with instruc- principles tions drawn accordance with the laid down given in the Brunswick case. Instruction B, on behalf of plaintiff is as follows: though jury
“Even evidence believe from the injured committed defense shall be no suicide, jury that the insured committed unless find suicide, from believe contem- evidence, that plated application suicide at the he his timé made policy stipula- any or certificate insurance, of contrary tion in the to the is void.” if This instruction was erroneous because suicide intentionally is accidental. havе committed would proper been if had limited the suicide to death self- inflicted the insured while was insane.
Instruction numbered 11 asked the defendant and by refused is as follows: court, ‘‘ jury you The court instructs the that if believe the evidence Vincent R. Andrus committed you not accidental, then his death was unless further be- the evidence that at the lieve from time he drank carbolic he so insane as to be physi- acid, unconscious of consequences of nature cal act.” according instruction is correct That to the doctrine Brunswick annоunced ease and' should have been given. TERM, 1920. APRIL plaintiff is appellant asserts IV. years sixty-one deceased was because to recover
entitled to him age policy was issued of when Statutes 6956, Revised Insured's violation doing corporation provides: “No 1909, which Sixty. cer- issue a article shall business person any who life of tificate or age.” sixty years birthday more than nearest show does not As a the evidence matter fact applica- age. sixty years His than was more day statéd that December, made tion tenth apрlication age. previous years made sixty A he was years fifty-nine April that he was stated 30, 1913, beneficiary age. presented Mrs. statement her Andrus, birthday Septem- gave her as' defendant, husband’s to the would him which true make 7,1853, ber December, at which made the tenth time application. testimony But Mrs. Andrus her swore *12 that she didn’t know how he whether he was; old was 61, and she he himself knew 60 believe old didn’t how goes as the it is he was. far evidence conclusive- So not ly application in that his statement the is untrue-. allegation shown upon appellant positiоn its an
But bases petition plaintiff’s in the the second count effect the estopped deny liability ac that the defendant is on age, it insured’s count of the because knew he was 61 age years they policy. the time of the said at of wrote It is respondent although in the and not it denied, brief clearly appear in the abstract the dosen’t of that pro record, second abandoned and that the count was trial the upon petition first the count ceeded and a verdict upon the first rendered count. The second count not was in evidence and afterwards therefore introduced was jury purpose weighing the before the of not for al the plaintiff. legation admission as The abandoned pleading evidence, was but admissible was not conclu alleged. weighed fact any sive as be could like defendant. [Walser admission other Wear, Railroad, Ettenson v. l. OF MISSOURI. At the instance of instructed the defendant court jury believed Andrus, evidence that on sixty years December, 1914, tenth of was more than age, birthday, his nearest .at verdict must finding by jury.that defendant. there So was years sixty age he was over at the time. sixty Even if it shown were he over age application time made it would not policy. avail defendant a suit on this As we have seen above, the contract suit on which the brought Chapter is not one authorized Article III, appellant organized; under which the was not a plan contract of insurance the assessment de- as fined Section 6950, Revised Statutes-1909. says corporation doing
Section 6956 that: “No busi- ness article shall issue a certificate or any person sixty years the life of who is more thаn age:”
“Doing a'policy business under this article” means provided issued on article the assessment plan. Necessarily apply it would not to a plan sonde plan, than the assessment because would be business “done under this article.” For n thatreason we think that the of the defendant was immaterial in this ease.
Because the error giving trial court in in- plaintiff, B refusing behalf of give and in struction judgment instruction asked defendant, is re- Bailey and the cause remanded. versed Mosley, GG., concur. *13 opinion foregoing PER CURIAM:—The by White, opinion adopted
O-., of the court. All judges concur.