18 N.W.2d 755 | S.D. | 1945
The defendant is a fraternal benefit association, incorporated and having its domicile in the State of Ohio. On December 21, 1922, it issued an insurance certificate to Ford Shane naming Elizabeth Shane, his mother, as beneficiary. The certificate provided for indemnity against bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means. The indemnity provided for death was $5,000 cash, and $1,300 in weekly installments of $25 each. On May 8, 1931, the insured visited a physician's office to be examined for stricture. The doctors applied a local anesthetic, preliminary to introducing a sound for exploratory purposes. The insured went into convulsions as a result of the anesthetic and died within about two minutes. The beneficiary then brought an action on the certificate in Pennington county. The case was removed to the United States District Court where it was tried resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals where the judgment was reversed. Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Shane, 8 Cir.,
Appellant claims that this action was not commenced within six month from the time the claim on the certificate was disallowed, and that the claim is therefore barred. The constitution of the association was made a part of the certificate and provides: "No suit or proceeding, either at *455 law or in equity, shall be brought to recover any benefits under this Article after six (6) months from the date the claim for said benefits is disallowed by the Supreme Executive Committee."
This limitation is valid under the statutes and judicial decisions of the state of Ohio where the insurer has its domicile. Bartley v. National Business Men's Ass'n,
[1] Respondent admits that this action was not commenced within six months from the time that the claim was rejected, but claims that the limitation fixed by the contract is void in this state, under SDC 10.0705, which provides: "Every provision in a contract restricting a party from enforcing his rights under it by usual legal proceedings in ordinary tribunals or limiting his time to do so, is void."
The above section of the Code is a statute of general application, and it is valid. Vesey v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.,
The question then is whether the limitation contained in the contract, valid under the laws of Ohio where the appellant has its domicile, or the laws of South Dakota where this action was brought, are applicable in this case. If our decision is to be ruled by the contract, the action is barred. If we are to be governed by the South Dakota statute, the action is not barred. Obviously, this court will follow its own decisions and the statutes of this state, unless it finds, as appellant claims, that the limitation contained in the contract must be upheld under the Federal Constitution, notwithstanding the laws of this state.
[2] In Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins,
This rule applies to the whole field of conflict of laws. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.,
[3] The issue of law arising out of the limitation clause in this contract of insurance does not arise under the Federal Constitution nor under any act of Congress. The defendant was, at the time it issued its certificate of membership to the insured, and at all times since has been, authorized to do business in this state as a foreign insurance corporation. The insured was a citizen of this state when he was insured by defendant, and remained such a citizen until the time of his death. The beneficiary was a resident of this state when the certificate of insurance was issued, and she has been such resident ever since. The insured died within this state, and the cause of action arose here. The action therefore relates to persons and events within this state.
The right of defendant to claim that the action is barred in this state by the terms of the contract, conflicts with SDC 10.0705, quoted herein. That statute was considered in the case of Vesey v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., supra. It was held in that case that, under this statute, any stipulation in a contract which limits the time within which a party may enforce his rights thereunder, is absolutely void. That this statute is applicable to a contract made *457
in another state and upon which an action is brought in this state was decided in the case of L.D. Powell Co. v. Larkin,
See also Order of the United Commercial Travelers v. Meinsen, supra; Dinnie v. United Commercial Travelers,
Therefore the defendant's claim that this action is barred by the contract is contrary to the public policy of this state. So far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, the courts of this state are free to apply the statutes and decisions of this state in determining this issue.
[4] Neither is this question ruled by the "due process" clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as that clause was interpreted and applied in Home Ins. Co. v. Dick,
Appellant also cites Supreme Council Royal Arcanum v. Green,
[5] There is a further distinction. Those cases related to substantive rights and obligations of the society and its members under the insurance certificate. Here the question is in no way related to the validity of the insurance contract. It has to do with the remedy only, and in such matters the courts of the forum are free to apply the rules of the forum, notwithstanding the "full faith and credit" or "due process" clauses of the United States Constitution. Pritchard v. Norton,
[6] Appellant also claims that the plaintiff is bound by the decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Shane, 8 Cir.,
After the case was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals and before final judgment was entered in the District Court, the action was dismissed without prejudice, on stipulation of the parties. There never was a final judgment adjudicating the rights of the parties in the federal courts. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals established the law of the case as to all subsequent proceedings in that action in the federal courts. However persuasive that decision might be on the questions decided, it does not govern the disposition of a new action for the same cause, brought in the state courts. Wells v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,
Appellant also assigns as error the decision of the circuit court to the effect that Shane's death was the result of external, violent and accidental means. The appellant's first contention under this assignment is that the rights and obligations of the members of the association under their contracts are governed by the laws of Ohio as defined and interpreted by the courts of that state.
[7] This question is one of substantive right under the terms of a certificate of membership in a fraternal benefit society incorporated under the laws of Ohio. The laws of South Dakota do not conflict with the laws of Ohio as to this issue. Consequently the laws of Ohio will be observed, to the extent that they are found to be determinative of this question. Supreme Council Royal Arcanum v. Green, supra; Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, supra; Sovereign Camp W.O.W. v. Bolin, supra.
Many courts make a distinction between accidental means and accidental results. The case most often cited by the courts and followed in Ohio is United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. Barry,
Another case cited in the Ohio decisions is Landress v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
The court held in that case that there was nothing in the sun's rays which was unknown or unforeseen by the insured, and denied liability under the policy.
In the case of New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Johnson,
The next Ohio case is Burns v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation,
The Ohio Supreme Court next decided the case of Mitchell v. New York Life Ins. Co.,
In the case of Hassay v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
[8] From these cases it may be fairly concluded that the rule announced in the Barry case, as quoted herein, is the rule in Ohio. However, there seems to be no Ohio case in which the rule has been applied to a case where a drug was injected into the body of the insured for the purpose of inducing anesthesia. The rule in such cases, established by the decisions of courts in many jurisdictions, is that, if the natural and probable effect of the drug as administered, is to induce an anesthesia without injury to the patient, and if the patient dies as a result, because of an unforeseen and unexpected idiosyncrasy, or an unusual susceptibility to the drug, then the administration of the drug was the cause of *462
the death and the death was produced by accidental means. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 4 Cir.,
[9] There is also a rule of presumption or inference which is applicable to cases involving the question of accidental means. For example, in the Barry case the only evidence of anything unexpected or unforeseen in the jump made by insured was that it sounded to his companions as if he came down heavily on his heels. Justice Blatchford said: "It must be presumed, not only that the deceased intended to alight safely, but thought that he would. The jury were, on all the evidence, at liberty to say that it was an accident that he did not."
The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. In the Landress case the court said: "Nor do we say that in other circumstances an unforeseen and hence accidental result may not give rise to the inference that the external means was also accidental."
In the Ohio case of Hassay v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., supra, the court said [
[10] Plaintiff's evidence in this case was that butyn, the anesthetic, was injected into the body of insured. This was external and violent means. The evidence also shows that death resulted therefrom and that such result was unexpected and unforeseen. The result was therefore accidental. From these facts the trial court had the right to infer that the means were also accidental. The only evidence introduced in this case by the defendant to overcome the case established by plaintiff's evidence is proof that insured voluntarily submitted himself to his physician for examination and consented that a local anesthetic be administered; that butyn was administered in accordance with proper medical practice for the relief of pain; that the proper amount and strength of the drug was used; that the insured had an idiosyncrasy toward butyn; that unexpected and injurious results followed the administration of the drug; that such a result is so rare that physicians give it no consideration as a possibility. Appellant does not dispute that the injection of the drug must be considered as external and violent nor that the result was accidental. The evidence introduced by defendant is therefore insufficient to overcome the prima facie case made by the evidence of the plaintiff.
These conclusions preclude the theory that the death of insured resulted from medical or surgical treatment, or from the intentional taking of medicine or drugs.
For the reasons stated the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
ROBERTS and RUDOLPH, JJ., concur.
SMITH, P.J., dissents.
POLLEY, J., not sitting. *464