Price v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance Company

Decision Date27 May 1904
Docket Number13,847 - (109)
PartiesNATHANIEL PRICE v. STANDARD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Action by plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Margaret Price, deceased, to recover $5,000 and interest upon a policy of accident insurance issued to Elijah Price, deceased, and payable to plaintiff's intestate in case of death of the insured. The case was tried before Simpson, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Accident Insurance -- Negligence.

A clause in an accident insurance policy limiting the right of recovery to the amount of one thousand dollars, in case of death "due to unnecessary exposure to obvious risk of injury or obvious danger, * * *" must be deemed to include all cases of exposure to unnecessary danger attributable to negligence on the part of the insured. The general principles of the law of negligence apply, and a recovery cannot be had for the larger amount contracted to be paid, unless the assured exercised ordinary care.

Evidence.

The evidence being conflicting, the question involving the alleged negligence of the insured was properly submitted to the jury.

Cobb & Wheelwright and E. A. Prendergast, for appellant.

By weight of authority, the language, "due to unnecessary exposure to obvious risk of injury or obvious danger," includes all cases of exposure to unnecessary danger where such exposure is attributable to negligence on the part of the assured. In other words, in such cases, the general principles of the law of negligence apply. Tuttle v. Travellers, 134 Mass. 175; Smith v. Preferred, 104 Mich. 634; Shevlin v. American, 94 Wis. 180; Sargent v. Central, 112 Wis. 29; Cornish v. Accident, 23 Q.B. Div. 453; Fidelity v. Chambers, 93 Va. 138; Williams v. U.S., 133 N.Y. 366; Follis v. U.S., 94 Iowa 435; Glass v. Masons Fraternal Acc. Assn., 112 F. 495.

The insured subjected himself to unnecessary exposure to obvious risk of injury and obvious danger, when he attempted to start a fire by pouring kerosene oil from a closed can into a base burner coal stove, in which he knew there had been a coal fire the night before, and which fire he knew was accustomed to burn all night. The courts take judicial notice of the fact that kerosene oil, under certain conditions, is explosive. State v. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307; Jamieson v. Indiana, 128 Ind. 555; Lanigan v. New York, 71 N.Y. 29; Fuchs v. City, 133 Mo. 168.

John M. Rees, for respondent.

Mere negligence or carelessness of the insured causing an accident is no defense in an action on an accident policy containing a clause as to unnecessary exposure to danger. Wilson v. Northwestern Mut. Acc. Assn., 53 Minn. 470. Exceptions of this kind are construed most strongly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. Equitable v. Osborn, 90 Ala. 201; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 958.

Where death results from accidental means, the company must allege and prove facts necessary to bring the case within the exception limiting the company's general liability. 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d. Ed.) 332.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, J.

On March 9, A.D. 1901, defendant issued to one Elijah Price its policy of accident insurance, and therein agreed, in case of his death by accident within one year, to pay to Mrs. Margaret Price, the mother of the insured, $5,000, upon the express condition, however, that

In event of death * * * due to unnecessary exposure to obvious risk of injury or obvious danger, * * * then in all such cases * * * the limit of this company's liability shall be one-fifth the amount otherwise payable under this policy, anything to the contrary in this policy notwithstanding.

Before the death of his mother, and on December 15, 1901, the insured, while attempting to light a fire with kerosene oil, received injuries from the effect of which he died the next day. The trial of an action brought to recover upon this policy resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $5,480.81, being $5,000 and interest. Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court overruling its motion for a new trial.

Two general questions are presented: (1) Whether the verdict is supported by the evidence, and (2) whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury, and in refusing to charge that the maximum amount of their verdict should not exceed the sum of $1,000 and interest.

The evidence as to just how the accident occurred is unsatisfactory. Only one witness saw it. Mrs. Sargent, a nurse employed in the house where it occurred, testified that while looking through a radiator into the room below, she saw the deceased put kindling wood in at the front door of a self-feeding coal stove, and pour kerosene oil from an oil can into the stove; also that she saw him, a moment later again pour oil from the same can into the stove; that he wore simply an undershirt, drawers and stockings at the time; that she looked away for perhaps a minute, when an explosion occurred in the room below, which turned out...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Morrison v. Lee
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1904
    ... ... 127; ... Gleason v. Boehm, 34 A. 886; Price v. Standard ... Life & Accident Ins. Co., 99 ... ...
  • Powell v. Travelers Protective Association of America
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1911
    ... ... 256; Keene v ... Accident Ass'n, 161 Mass. 149. (2) Before a ... Powell, and the insurance company, make the issue of ... voluntary or ... Glass v. Masonic Ass'n, 112 F. 495; Price v ... Ins. Co., 99 N.W. 887; Tuttle v. Ins ... 812; Meadows v ... Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 129 Mo. 76, 31 S.W. 578; ... Fetter v ... ...
  • Morrison v. Lee
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1907
    ... ... plaintiff had a right to assume was standard kerosene, when ... the same contained a mixture ... v. Deselms (Okl.) 89 ... P. 212, and Price v. Standard Life & Accident Ins ... Co., 92 ... a policy of accident insurance which limited recovery to ... one-fifth of the ... ...
  • Gillis v. Duluth Casualty Association
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1916
    ... ... upon defendant's accident insurance policy. The case was ... tried before ... In Price v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. 92 Minn ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT