*1 MILLER, Katherine R.
Plaintiff-Appellant, COMPANY,
The HOME INSURANCE
Defendant-Respondent.
En Banc. 1980.
Rehearing Denied Oct. Clampett, and B. H.
RayW. Daniel Springfield, plaintiff-appellant. for Clark, Whiteaker, Spring- Ray Russell G. field, defendant-respondent. for RENDLEN, Judge. entered on verdict for plaintiffs ac-
Home Insurance seeking tion benefits under a acci- of her dent as a result appeals, Plaintiff con- husband’s death. directed ver- tending was entitled to a she policy, law the dict because as a matter of 1969,1 light construed of § Following affirmance afforded District, Appeals, the Court of Southern and is deter- the cause transferred original appeal. though mined here as Mo.Const., V, art. jury trying to the satisfaction of the court
1. Section 376.620 contemplated sui- policies upon In all suits of insurance on cide at the he made by any company doing life hereafter issued stipulation in the to a citizen shall be void. it shall be no defense that the insured committed unless shall be shown
779 Miller, by Regional Manager Katherine her hus- east for A.P. widowed Sales Green 1973, However, band’s suicide sued to recover the Company. Refractories the A. P. $50,000 designated death benefit as benefi- in Mex- Company headquartered Green by of a policy ico, undisputed Missouri and it is the Home Insurance to her hus- policy apparently was issued and delivered long employer, band’s A.P. Re- Green company group policyholder as the at fractories. At the time Mr. death answer, its home In its office Mexico.4 Miller was a “covered under the alleged policy of insurance defendant contemplated benefits loss- “was a Missouri contract controlled and es resulting injuries,2 from accidental but law, governed by Missouri but by amendatory endorsement excluded from Missouri law the substantive law of the coverage, “intentionally inju- self-inflicted defenses govern State Alabama ries, thereat, suicide or attempt by hereinafter asserted defendant.” (in Missouri, sane).” sane or insane urges application Defendant of the “most trial, At plaintiff theory advanced a significant relationship” test5 to resolve the terms, the accident insurance proper- question applica choice of law construed, ly included the risk of suicide tion of that of Alabama should test while sane or insane and because it was This, govern. ends the argues, defendant conceded the death resulted from a self-in- matter, as suicide exclusions are valid under wound, gunshot plaintiff flicted should re- Kiley the law Mutu of Alabama. v. Pacific cover as a jury, matter of law. The how- 253, al Life Insurance 237 Ala. 186 So. ever, by its verdict found Miller sane at the 559, (1939). 565 Plaintiff counters that Mis time of necessarily plain- death3 rejecting adopted significant souri has never the most tiff’s contention that death occurred relationship test for cases if it contract insane and insanity that because of the here, applied (including death was accidental. Plaintiff was thus 376.620) the suicide would never § position limited to a (2d) theless Restatement was intended to be considered an accidental Conflict 192 and Comment injury and a covered risk within (1971). terms, and the excluding endorsement cov- erage for such effectively death is voided Missouri to lex consistently adhered by provisions of 376.620. As stated in analysis determining loci contractus brief, plaintiff-appellant’s “Respondent Is apply predeces whether to 376.620 and its 376.620, V.A.M.S., Precluded Sec. Prom sor statutes insurance. contracts of Invoking Exclusion ... to De- [the] Whited v. National Western Life Insurance Coverage feat the Rejecting Thereof.” this Co., 364, 1975); 526 368 plaintiff’s contention trial court denied Bearup Equitable Society, Life Assurance motion for directed verdict. 942, (1943); 172 946
At the Equitable Society, outset we must Fields v. Life Assurance decide whether law of Missouri or governs. Alabama Mil- 118 S.W.2d 523 Luk ler, long time resident of Alabama on the ens v. International Life Insurance 269 death, date of his employed (1917), appeal South- Mo. S.W. “ policy provided: ‘Injury’ means acci- Company. Green Refractories This was the dental sustained a Covered insuring agreement through Person, during Policy the term of this . .” was afforded to Edwin C. Miller. The certifi- cate of insurance [mailed Miller in Alabama] instruction, directing Plaintiffs main verdict clearly provided that it was not a contract of pertinent part read in as follows: “Your verdict insurance.” plaintiff you must be for believe that Edwin C. Miller was insane at the time he shot himself 5.See Restatement Conflict of Laws April .” (1971). brief, Defendant-respondent admits in its policyholder in case was the A. P. “[T]he (1923); Equitable S.W. 912 Fields dismissed 248 U.S. 39 S.Ct. (Mo. Society, 118 S.W.2d L.Ed.2d 438 1938), contends that sui App. nevertheless With within the while sane is a covered risk cide majority rule the law it is the pol bodily injury” in the of the state where the master icy accomplish before us. Plaintiff would *3 ques delivered controls in choice of law previous Missou this result and circumvent Group tions. See Annotation: Insurance- is not an holdings ri suicide while sane that Laws, 695, 696. Conflict of 72 A.L.R.2d poli imposing on the injury by Though we decline invitation to defendant’s of the cy’s coverage language, the terms sig “most adopt the Second Restatement’s argues exclusionary She that endorsement. cases, relationship nificant for such test” a covered risk because suicide sane is test, recognized is that in under the attempted to ex Insurance Home absence an law of effective choice of clause exclusion, supra. Reasoning clude it. See policy, generally in the where the the state premise it was cov on the excluded employer principal place of has his ered, exclusion is plaintiff then asserts the supply governing the law to 376.620. invalidated our suicide contracts; insurance not the law of the reasoning. accept We cannot this place and employee where the is domiciled First, suggested no Missouri case receives the certificate. Restatement exclusionary clause which holds that an Conflict of Comment standing alone endows approach, Hence either Missouri law under Teter, v. Transport Indemnity Co. addition, would of 1978). Next, S.W.2d in uniformity Missouri law furthers the the exclu argument, we to favor this terpretation insurance giv incongruously be sionary clause would policies with accidental death benefits. coverage not to provide effect en otherwise, scope protection itWere the necessary It be liability. would limit liability afforded the insured of the and the cov parties the intended broaden assume change through insurer could the various amendatory ex of an erage by device might states in certificate holders clusion, the statute they knew from provides The in the reside. master effectively voided. prior law was and case Provisions,” is “General that it amended to Further, terms policy’s when requirements of statutes of conform to the unambiguous, canons of construc are delivered, is state where instrument reshaping the tion constrain our Missouri,6 this case from this it must be Farm Mu urged. See State the manner said that law is con application of Missouri v. Universal Insurance Co. tual Automobile expectations of sonant with the reasonable Co., 594 Underwriters Insurance Accordingly, parties to the contract. Eq Moskowitz are to be determined under the issues Society, 544 uitable law of Missouri. It is settled issue, plaintiff Turning principal injury” bodily sane, conceding “suicide while sane" see suicide does not include regarded 2d, not been 41.196 and numer on Insurance Couch cited, when constru and we conclude an accidental Missouri cases ous ing not a covered such Brunswick v. Standard group policy Accident Insurance 213 risk within this coverage, no (1919); Aufrichtig v. Columbian us. As there was before 5.W. exclusionary clause and of Mo. 249 effect of the National Life Insurance the state in which with the statutes of Policy PROVI- master “GENERAL hereby “Conformity pertinent to con- part: amended is delivered is SIONS” are in requirements such Any provision Poli- form to the minimum with cy statutes: state date, added.) which, (Emphasis statutes.” on its effective conflict 376.620 are irrelevant to a determination of the cause.7 Missouri, Respondent, STATE of is affirmed. NEWMAN, Appellant. Jack Edward DONNELLY, SEILER, WELLIVER, HIGGINS, JJ., MORGAN and concur. BARDGETT, J., separate C. dissents in One. Division dissenting opinion filed. BARDGETT, Judge, dissenting. Chief Rehearing Denied Oct. I respectfully dissent. The in issue provided payment to the named benefi- *4 specified sum of a “covered
dies as a bodily injury. result of accidental
This is an insurance policy on the life of
those regardless covered of what the
respondent calls it. The matter of suicide directly dealt with the Missouri Assembly
General with to insurance person’s
on a life.
Section
“In all upon policies suits of insurance
of life hereafter by any company
doing business in this to a citizen of it shall be no defense that the
insured committed unless it shall
be shown to the satisfaction of the court jury
or trying the
contemplated suicide at the time he made for the policy, any
stipulation in
shall be void.” my opinion, when the event insured
against is death then 376.620 is control-
ling when the mechanism of death is sui-
cide; applies and it whether the
called a
ordinary insurance, other name.
I would judgment reverse and direct that
be entered in
appellant.
favor of
validity
Metropoli
7. Our decision does not affect
of those
forbids exclusion. See Sommer v.
Life,
cases which hold that suicide while insane is an
tan