*1 Richmond Company Kirby Life Insurance v. The Frances Virginia. 2, 1976. September No. 751127. Record Present, theAll Justices.
Evans B. (Arthur on E. Smith, brief), for in error. Jessee plaintiff C. Thomas Burton, (Kenneth E. Fox Trabue; & Hunter, Jr. Trabue, brief), for defendant in error.
F Anson, C. delivered the J., of the court. this action Atkinson, Frances against brought Kirby plaintiff, recover bene- (insurer) Insurance of Virginia Company a life insurance under the accidental death ficiary provisions Atkinson).1 (decedent issued husband, to her Darrell Lee *2 letter in a trial The case the was tried without and judge, jury, accidental was not caused found that Atkinson’s death by opinion, resulted self-destruc- means, as contended the from by plaintiff, ex- the or self-inflicted one of tion within the terms of clusions. for the insurer. was entered Judgment accordingly here, B,
Section Part of the insurance relevant provides: policy, death for accidental insured hereunder “[I]f any employee, violent, . ex- . . shall have sustained bodily injuries solely ternal and ... means, accidental and . shall suffered . . [death] hereof, will and limitations terms Company pay, subject however, .; amount of the insurance . that . specified provided, in no case shall of accidental death . . . insurance any payment made for death . . . or or resulting directly indirectly, wholly par-
from: “(1) while, Self-destruction self-inflicted sane in- injury, . .” sane. .
The evidence shows 1971, Atkinson, that an em- on November of the School Board, was admitted to Roanoke ployee Wythe County Memorial for treatment of an inflamma- enteritis, Hospital regional bowel disease. 10, 1971, was on December tory Surgery performed he was thereafter in a room on the floor of the placed eighth hospital. Atkinson December until progressed normally surgery 1971. it was noted that that Atkinson confused During day appeared He told nurses, his and wife that began hallucinating. physicians, he was He staff. believed the was being gassed by hospital gas the vents his in room. His condition coming through diagnosed as toxic restraints were physician psychosis. Body applied decedent from bed, out of his and he was medi- prevent getting given cation to him. 4:00 o’clock next quiet Approximately morning, his wife and asked her come and him be- telephoned get cause were him and to kill him.” At that “they gassing trying point, a nurse came into his room, took receiver, told the wife telephone that he was confused and not to about him. worry
Atkinson was last seen alive before 7:00 a.m. there- Shortly after, he was dead, discovered on the outside of the hos- lying ground 1.The had the face amount company paid plaintiff policy. evi- stairwell. The under an window
pital story eighth five about seen dence shows the window was when closed Decedent’s minutes before the discovered. decedent’s body found on radiator the stairwell. Photographs hospital gown introduced location window and radiator were showing evidence.
An restraints were examination of bed decedent’s room showed the hall, still A down the room, intact. trail of blood extended from the stairwell, into sill. onto the radiator and window Decedent’s went testified it was his physician out of the he was volition, window of his own because he feared being or “done in” staff, he wanted to gassed hospital this imaginary peril.
Plaintiff ex- violent, contends that death was caused decedent’s ternal, and accidental means, while insurer death was argues self-destruction.
A under an accident a double beneficiary indemnity policy, clause of a life has the burden of death *3 policy, proving was caused violent, external, and accidental means. When the evi by dence shows, here, as that an insured’s death was caused presented by violent and external a means, arises death was acci presumption dental. There also a However, suicide. both presumption against are rebuttable and be overcome “clear and satis presumptions evidence which excludes reasonable factory” con “any hypothesis sistent with death from natural or accidental causes.” and Casualty Life v. Daniel, 332, 209 Va. 163 S.E.2d 584 (1968). The issue, under the evidence here, turns the presented upon of the clause in the re meaning applicability policy excluding if death results from “self destruction covery or self inflicted injury, sane while or insane.” This is a first of question impression Virginia, and decisions in other are not harmonious. jurisdictions Plaintiff of consciousness the nature and conse argues physical the of act and an intention an insured to kill himself quences must be shown the before exclusion clause of self-destruction or self-in flicted insane, sane or can be invoked. relies on injury, She Christensen v. New Mut. England 197 Ga. 30 Co., Life S.E.2d (1944). 471 For other authorities supporting plaintiff’s argu ment see Annot., A.L.R.3d 1015, 1025-32 (1966), and the cases there collected.
In
the Court of
Christensen,
of
certified to the
Appeals
Georgia
Court of that state the
Supreme
following question:
If
‘Suicide.
follows:
as
life
insurance
“Where
policy provides
own hand
his
die
shall
insane,
whether sane
insured,
the
lia-
the
of
this
from the date
issue
two
act within
policy,
years
the
be limited
shall
this
of the
bility
company
less
in-
amount
of the
any
in one sum
paid,
premiums
payment
face
the
for
liable
Is
debtedness to
company
company.’
unless
therefor
be liable
where it would
amount of the policy,
insured,
where the
above
became
provision
applicable,
quoted
comes to
date of the issue of
within two
from the
policy,
years
a hotel
window of
sixth
his death
from
story
by jumping
and one
hotel
roof of another
on the
forty-three
landing
part
hallucination,
reason
an
below,
half
when the
feet
insured, by
realize
enemies and did not
to escape injury
imaginary
jumped
his death?”
as a natural
act would
produce
consequence
that, where
Court answered the
holding
Supreme
question
nature and
an insured did not realize
consequences
physical
did not
act, and
not
take his own
his act
life,
intend
thereby
self-destruction,
constitute
while sane or insane within
meaning
so
the exclusion clause of the
rejected
policy.
holding
Gogorza
in De
Knickerbocker
reasoning
dissent
and followed the
there.
The numerical of the view that in order weight supports authority for an insurer to avoid the exclusion of death from self- liability destruction, insane, sane it is not the insured to necessary 212 form or to
realize
nature
of
act
or consequence
physical
would
act of self-destruction
conscious
to take his life. If the
purpose
so
would be
it
be
as
of a sane
suicide in the case
person,
regarded
the insured
whether
insured,
treated as
an insane
of
to
regardless
such act
realized
realizing
capable
cause
intention
his death whether he was
entertaining
capable
v.
rule are:
to kill
the cases
Bigelow
himself.
this
Among
supporting
v.
Berkshire
Ins.
U.S. 284 (1876);
Metropolitan
93
Co.,
Johnson
Life
&
Ins.
United States
(3d
1968);
Fidelity
“In our rule would lead confusion and opinion, minority define courts to attempts by varying degrees' aspects insanity. . . . The broader exclusion afforded exclusionary rule is in no . . obnoxious to . majority way public policy. [F]urther, and of most we think the construc- importance, tion clause in the its common gives light history, plain sense the words 380 S.W.2d at meaning employed.” A.L.R.3d at 1013-14.
In court said: Blum, supra,
“If the insured fell out of the window
accident or in faint,
fall,
was killed
there could
course
be a
But
récovery.
he,
motion,
if
of his own
went
the window and
physical
so
himself, then under the contract, the insurer can avoid
destroyed
and it would matter not what the mental
condition
liability,
insured was. The effect of the
the instruction
qualification
quoted
was a
that,
direction
death
resulted from
although
act of
the window, suicide could
physical
going through
found unless the deceased
himself,
intended to kill
and knew his
act would
result in death. And this we hold was a material
probably
error.”
We think the rule is the one better the numerical ma- adopted of the courts with the issue here. jority dealing presented case bar, court, at the trial fact, the trier of found that the accidental death and suicide were over- presumptions favoring against
213 fact are by The court’s supported evidence. come findings by caused not death was decedent’s evidence that clear and convincing self-inflicted self-destruction means, accidental by by not aberration, a mental although laboring con- in The trial to take his life. intend justified actually to order in that Atkinson, the evidence from cluding his restraints, left bed from the extricated himself peril, imaginary room, off, his stairwell, took down hall to went gown hospital went his own volition and radiator, and on the it by purposely placed lan- The caused his death. which window, plain through self- all comprehends purposeful exclusionary guage a sane from act emanate whether the suicidal shall destruction person it was Thus, one aberration. from mental necessary suffering to his and intend act that comprehend within the self-destruction take life order for death come his his exclusion. stated,
For the reasons the judgment
Affirmed. J., dissenting. Harrison, has failed accord the wife-beneficiary pre- death she is was shown that Atkinson’s to which entitled. It
sumptions
was
estab-
caused
and
means. This
been
violent
external
having
lished,
was accidental
arose that the decedent’s death
presumptions
and
on
sui-
was not suicidal. The burden was
the insurer to establish
cide
clear
reason-
and
evidence to the exclusion
any
satisfactory
able
death.
&
209
Daniel,
accidental
Casualty
hypothesis
Life
Va.
“[d]ecedent’s physician on his own . . extracts window volition. .” The following from the do Yates, this Dr. Jr., Robert testimony physician, Harry not Dr. testified: Yates support premise.
“He was well, as far with getting along reasonably people do, this disorder until the to evening prior post-operatively when death, the nurses that he and was acting bizarrely reported as was described, he was and at was terrified hallucinating really these were to at him or the fact that he was things trying get that there was dreadful about to being gassed, something happen to him. Jf, # yr
x “This, to the toxic I think, made turn, [referring psychosis] him not ain normal and whatever this capable reacting way dread was that was after him, I think he was .thing doing darndest to from it. get away
^ ^ ^^ “The was the cause of his death. fall .y. *Jr .y. *n' Jt. TT
*.y. (cid:127)7T “Well, think, I to whether [as from the win- jumped dow of his own if I can it in I think be, what I volition] put may think he was He was not trying get away something. aware that he was on the he eighth Perhaps thought floor. on a ground and I will somewhere, climb out this win- floor dow, and it turned out the window was stories above the eight ground. -y. *7r J/. Tr .u. vr n jr
*j/. was not rational last time I “[H]e saw him. I don’t think he knew where he was. # # # # # true, “That is [that known not have may known he was on It floor.] eighth analogous me were threatening you that if someone say chasing you mountain, aof were knife, awith edge along you running see looked back to if you you, gaining you guy cliff, off the sure off the cliff—I am wanted ran jump you went off you anyway. -v. .y. TP w w TP he went out of I think “/ don't know whether he or not. jumped answer was. the window to whatever this [This given escape thing to the whether Mr. Atkinson jumped purposely response question in order to of an imaginary peril.]
Mj TP Jf, TP JL TP TP TP “It whether it was an irrational act. [responding question awas act on his his own volition.]” [Emphasis voluntary part supplied.]
In a referred to letter dated Dr. Yates [exhibit] January “an Atkinson’s death as unfortunate accident”.
An exhaustive examination of the
in this case will not
testimony
show whether Atkinson fell
of the
or
window
out
jumped
or under
window
on
the belief the
was
or
escape imaginary perils,
near
The
level.
un-
was
ground
attending physician speculated
whether the decedent fell
and this court is
willing
say
jumped,
in no better
to make
a
such
The one
position
judgment.
thing
was established with
was that the
was
complete certainty
not an insane
did not intend to
and was
suicide,
commit
com-
person,
unaware of the
he
what
pletely
peril
consequences
doing.
We should
the same
here that we have
apply
presumptions
applied
cases,
that were
in Schleunes Ameri-
v.
previous
recently applied
can Cas. Co.
“ ‘The suicide will stand and be decisive presumption against of the case until overcome which shall by testimony outweigh the presumption.’
[*] [*] # # # “Once evidence external, violent plaintiff presented showing death, under circumstances doubt, suicide in the state’s leaving pre- suicide to overcome the sumption against defendant required pre- suicide exclusion of sumption other by establishing every reasonable . . .” hypothesis. I in the Chris- would further add I the rule articulated regard tensen decision as the The “self-destruction sounder one. language self-inflicted while sane exclusions or insane”, similarly injury, a is The reason volume expressed, litigation. spawned great is It exclude both is not so language ambiguous. precise suicide which is and suicide which done under is attempted knowingly a state. delusionary holds: “The of the exclusion- majority opinion language plain all self-destruction whether the
ary
comprehends
purposeful
suicidal act shall
a
emanate from sane
one
person
suffering
mental aberration.”
the cases cited and relied
Among
“[O]n
language plainly comprehends
purposeful
destruction,
self
whether the suicidal
intent
conduct shall em
anate
from sane mind or a
one.”
deranged
Johnson,
insured, beset with marital
difficulties, and under
order to
wife,
from his
order,
violated that
went to
stay away
his home,
fuel oil around a room and on his
and set
spread
clothing
fire to the
and to his
He left
notes to his wife
two
clothing.
premises^
written in
which were
at the
found
scene of his
crayon
lipstick,
death. He died of
burns. The court found there was no
resulting
evidence that
did not know
what
and no alle-
doing,
Johnson
or contention which could
a reasonable
gation
conclusion
support
decedent was unaware of the fatal
of his act.
The court
court.
district
upheld
summary judgment
Sig-
it
with “intentional” and
nificantly,
observed:
equated “purposeful”
“It follows that
in the
summary judgment
improper
present
*8
case
if the record
only
established a
issue
whether
disputable
of fact
the insured, in his admitted
to take
derangement,
attempting
his life
he
when
immolated himself. Of course a deranged person
can believe
he
immortal,
is
or that fuel
water,
oil is
or,
some
other
basis,
irrational
his clothes with fuel oil and
saturating
a
match will not kill
Or
him.
his mental
applying
disorder
lighted
be so extreme that
no
has
whatever
comprehension
what
he is
such
doing. Any
showing
intentional
de-
negate
self
struction.”
“purposeful” prefix policy’s is to this I take If clause. It action that it be exclusionary the exception. intent of insurance where an insured company deny liability is killed or sustains as a result of or of suicide self-in- bodily injuries flicted or insane, while sane and whether such are injuries, injuries inflicted this should be stated in consciously intentionally, clearly its and under ex- policy. holding Applying majority, construed, as here could somnambulist recover clusionary for a self-inflicted received while Could injury walking sleep? sedated with under their influ- patient, hospital heavily drugs ence, who of bed and down the stairwell, recover? gets jumps And what would the status of inflicts who policyholder to himself while under the influence anesthesia or partially hyp- nosis?
I would reverse and enter final judgment appellant.