Branford Trust Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

• Citation: 102 Conn. 481,129 A. 379
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 01 June 1925
• Parties: Branford TRUST CO. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

129 A. 379

102 Conn. 481

Branford TRUST CO. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1925

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; John R. Booth Judge.

Action by the Branford Trust Company, as administrator of the estate of Charles A. Doolittle, against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error, judgment set aside, and cause remanded, with direction.

Frederick H. Wiggin and Stephen F. Dunn, both of New Haven for appellant.

William B. Ely and Louis B. Zacher, both of New Haven, for appellee.

MALTBIE, J.

The plaintiff brings this action as administrator upon the estate of Charles A. Doolittle to recover the full amount stipulated to be paid in a policy of life insurance issued to him by the defendant. The policy was dated September 25, 1920, and contained the following provision:

" If within one year from the date hereof the insured shall die by suicide--whether sane or insane--the liability of the company shall not exceed the amount of the premiums paid on this policy."

The assured died September 9, 1921, and the issue in the case was as to whether or not he committed suicide and so reduced the liability of the defendant to the amount of the premiums which had been paid upon the policy. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover the full amount of the policy, and one ground of claimed error is the refusal of the trial court to set that verdict aside.

The credibility of one of the principal witnesses offered by the defendant in support of its plea, a Mrs. Collins, was attacked by the plaintiff, which offered testimony of contradictory statements made by her out of court. Laying her evidence out of the case for the time being, the following facts were clearly established by the testimony of disinterested and mutually corroborating witnesses: The decedent was a carpenter, 43 years old, and had no family or known relatives. He had lived for some 8 or 9 years in Branford, boarding all the time in one family. Some three or four weeks before he died he secured work in New Haven and went there to live, renting a room in a house kept by Mrs. Collins. This room was on the third floor, close under a tin roof; it was very small, only about 5 feet and a half in width, and only a little longer than the bed in it; it had a window and door at opposite ends; and it was lighted by a single gas fixture, which at the time of decedent's death was in good condition. The day of September 8th had been warm, the thermometer registering as high as 85 degrees, and this warmth continued into the night. On the morning of September 9th, a son of Mrs. Collins, as he was coming up from his breakfast to his own room on the floor below, detected a slight odor of gas, and an investigation was made. On opening the door of decedent's room, which was closed, the decedent was found lying uncovered on his bed, dressed only in his underclothes, dead. The gas was turned on and the window was shut; over the knob of the door a towel was hung in such a way that it covered the keyhole; and a shirt lay on the floor in such a position as to indicate that it had very likely been placed across the bottom of the door, so as to close any crack that might be there. The physical appearance of the body indicated that the decedent died from poisoning by illuminating gas, and that his death had occurred in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 o'clock that morning. Certain letters lost before the trial were found in the room in which the decedent, according to the rather vague recollection of one witness, had written that he was tired of life.

If any credit were to be given to the testimony of Mrs. Collins, it would go to strengthen plaintiff's case, for she testified, first, that the decedent had told her that he wanted plenty of fresh air and that he had been accustomed to leave his window and door open at night, and so, by reason of a window in the hall opposite his room, had obtained a circulation of air through it; and, secondly, that the night before his death he had called some one upon the telephone apparently with the idea of paying a visit, and had been disappointed in the answer he had received, had seemed " a little bit excited and nervous." On the other hand, the only positive evidence introduced by the plaintiff upon the issue of the manner of decedent's death was that of the woman at whose house he had lived in Branford, and certain acquaintances, who had seen him not long before his death--one the day before, who stated that he had seemed to them cheerful and in his usual good spirits. It did offer testimony that Mrs. Collins had stated out of court that there was a leak in the gas pipe in decedent's room; and it attacked the inferences that the defendant sought to draw from various of the circumstances connected with his death, pointing to the fact that the door was not locked, explaining the hanging of the towel on the door knob as due to the lack of facilities in the room, the shirt on the floor as accidentally thrown there, and the closed window upon the theory that, as there was no evidence offered that it was not raining that night, it might have been shut to keep rain from blowing in upon the bed. The statement out of court attributed to Mrs. Collins exhausted itself in the effect it had on the credit to be accorded to her, and was not...