delivered the opinion of the Court.
Honorable Russell E. Smith, a senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, has certified to us a question of law in which it appears there are substantial grounds for differenсe of opinion, the adjudication of which by this Court would materially advance a decision in federal litigation. The following questions were certified:
Are the decisions of law set down in
Kingsland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
(1934),
If the Kingsland and Sullivan cases still state the law in Montana, are the differences in the language of the “exclusions” clauses sufficient to distinguish the policy involved here from those considered in Kingsland and Sullivaril
Lorenzo Lloyd Evans lived at an isolated location, known as “Copper Creek”, fifty miles from Libby, Montana, and twelve *244 miles frm Noxon, Montana. He was a lawyer, admitted to practice in Mоntana, with offices in Libby. Evans kept various wild animals and birds at his place on Copper Creek, including an eleven-year old wolf which he had raised from a pup. On the morning of June 27, 1979, Lloyd Evans was feeding his wolf when the wolf attacked and bit him on his right hand and wrist. Evans went back to the house, wrapped his hand with a towel, and sat down.
Within a period of apprоximately eight to fifteen minutes after the wolf attack, Evans indicated to his wife that the bite had precipitated a heart attack and that he should be driven to a hosрital right away. Evans walked to his car and laid down in the backseat. His wife had called an ambulance, and when they had traveled a little over half of the distance to Libby, thеy met the ambulance on the highway. Evans was transferred to the ambulance where oxygen was administered to him, and his pulse was monitored. While in the ambulance, and after a lapse of approximately forty-five to sixty minutes following the wolf attack, Evans’ pulse stopped, and he went into cardiac arrest. Oxygen and C.P.R. were administred, and Evаns showed some signs of life when the ambulance arrived at the hospital emergency room in Libby. Approximately fifteen minutes after arrival at the hospital, Lloyd Evans died.
Lloyd Evans had previously suffered a heart attack on April 4,1979. He was hospitalized at the Veterans’s Administration hospital in Spokane, Washington, for about three weeks. On April 25,1979, he was given a regular discharge and returned to the care of his physician, with the recommendation that he be in house rest for another six weeks and gradually resume his prеhospital activities.
Medical evidence indicates that the immediate cause of Lloyd Evans’ death was heart attack, but that the heart attack was “triggered” by thе wolf bite. The wolf bite was not severe enough by itself, to have caused the death of Evans.
Lloyd Evans had applied for, and Life Insurance Company of North America had issued, a certain group voluntary accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy, No. OK-2598, in the principal sum of $50,000, effective November *245 1,1972. The policy was in full force and effect, according to its terms, on the date of Lloyd Evans’ death. The policy contained this language:
“[The insured] is insured . . . against loss resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries caused by accident occurring while the policy is in force as to the Insured, herein called such injuries.
"
“EXCLUSIONS
“The policy does not cover loss caused by or resulting from any one or more of the following:
"
“(D) Illness, disease... bodily infirmity or any bacterial infection other than bacterial infection occurring in consequence of an accidental cut or wound.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The issue here is whether
Kingsland v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
(1934),
In Sullivan, the insured tripped over a piece of sheet metal and fell, hitting his head. Five days later he died of a cerebral hemorrhagе. Evidence was submitted at the trial that the insured was suffering from high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis at the time of the fall. Evidence also indicated that had a man not suffеring from high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis tripped over the sheet metal, in all probability, no hemorrhage would have resulted.
The insurance policy in
Sullivan
provided coverage if thе insured sustained “bodily injuries, solely through external violent and accidental means, resulting directly and independently of all other causes.” The Court in
Sullivan
admitted that a reasonаble scope of insurance was contemplated by the policy. Nevertheless, because of the clear and unequivocal nature of this language in the policy, the Court held that there would be no recovery if “. .. the insured might suffer an accident resulting in death to which disease or bodily infirmity
*246
contributed indirectly or partially . . .”
Sullivan,
In Kingsland, the insured had stepped onto a chair sitting on an uneven cement surface; he lost his balance and fell head first on the rough cement. The insured died shortly after the fall. The cause of the insurеd’s death was described as a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, precipitated by the fall and by striking his head on the cement floor.
The Court in
Kingsland
first looked to the language of the insurаnce policy which contained the condition that death must be shown to result “solely through external, violent and accidental means”.
Kingsland,
The Kingsland Court reasoned further that in Sullivan the fall alone was not sufficient to cause the insured’s death, and his conditiоn was therefore a contributing cause. In contrast, because evidence showed that the fall of the insured in Kingsland was sufficient to cause the death of the insured, recоvery was granted.
The issue here is whether this Court should still follow the rule set down in Kingsland and Sullivan that if a preexisting condition contributes to an insured’s death, there can be no recovery. Given thе extreme harshness of this rule and the liberal interpretation placed on such insurance policies in many jurisdictions today, we must overrule the Kingsland and Sullivan cases to the extеnt that they hold that there can be no recovery if a pre-existing disease either directly or indirectly contributes to an insured’s death.
We are persuaded that the better rule for the interpretation
*247
of such insurance policies is the following: Where an accidental injury aggravates or triggers a pre-existing dormant disease or physical infirmity, the accident may be said to have been the proximate cause of the resulting disability within the terms and meaning of an ordinary accident insurance poliсy. See,
Boring v. Haynes
(1972),
The mere presence of a pre-existing disease or infirmity will no longer relieve the insurer from liability in this state. Recovery may be had even though the disease аppears to have actually contributed to the cause of death as long as the accident sets in motion the chain of events leading to death, or if it is the prime or moving cause. See,
Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(1945),
A mere frail condition should not relieve an insurer from liability. As Chief Justice Cardozo noted in
Silverstein v. Metropolitan Life Co.
(1930),
We agree with the following language from
Couey v. National Benefit Life Insurance Company,
supra,
“In our view of the case, every injury or disease suffered by a person from his birth to the date of a particular injury contributes to some degree to the condition then present. Necessarily, by the words used in the policy it could not have been intended that payment would be due only when the accident was literally the sole cause of hospitalization. If a person *248 had suffered a broken leg which had healed perfectly five years before, and a second accident wherein the leg had broken at the same place, could it be said that the condition resulting from the first break did not in any way contribute to the second break? We think the answer is obvious and, under defendants’ theory, plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. In our view, this applicatiоn of the language of the policy is entirely too restrictive and would be unreasonable. Other courts have agreed. . .” Likewise, the rulings of Sullivan and Kingsland were too restrictive, and аny rules in these cases must be overruled to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion.
Since we have held that Kingsland and Sullivan no longer state the law in Montana, we need not discuss the second question certified to us.