Clay v. State Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 28 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 101. |
Citation | 94 S.E. 289,174 N.C. 642 |
Parties | CLAY v. STATE INS. CO. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Bertie County; Allen, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Allie Clyde Clay, administratrix, against the State Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. New trial granted.
Whether accident policy containing no specific exception covers intentional killing by third person depends on whether insured, being in the wrong, was the aggressor under circumstances rendering a homicide likely.
Where insured assaulted another with a pole, and then with a pistol, and was shot by such person, homicide held not accidental, within accident policy.
The action was to recover a double indemnity of $1,000, claimed on a policy of insurance on one George E. Clay, deceased, who was killed in a fight with one Sullivan on the 2d day of April, 1915. The policy, bearing date in 1909, and on which the premiums had been regularly paid, insured the life of said George E. Clay in the sum of $1,000, and contained a stipulation for double indemnity of $1,000, in terms as follows:
"During the premium paying period of this policy, and excluding any time while the same may be in force, as extended insurance all premiums having been duly paid, and this policy being then in force, in the event of the death of the insured resulting from bodily injury, sustained and effected directly through external, violent, and accidental means (suicide, sane or insane, not included), exclusively and independently of all other causes, provided such death shall occur within 90 days from the date of the accident the company will pay to the beneficiary or beneficiaries hereunder, in addition to the amount otherwise due, the sum of one thousand dollars."
The policy also contained a clause withdrawing certain cases from the risks covered by the policy, among them the following:
"If the insured shall, whether sane or insane, die by his own hand or act, or die in consequence of the violation of law, within one year from the date hereof, this policy shall be null and void and all payment therefor shall be forfeited."
On proof of death duly made, the $1,000 principal insurance was paid and received "without prejudice," and, in this suit for double indemnity of $1,000, recovery was resisted by defendant company on the ground:
"That the death of the insured was brought on by his own unlawful conduct in attacking one Sullivan with a deadly weapon, and that said death was not the result of 'external, violent, and accidental means (suicide, sane or insane, not included), exclusively and independently of all other causes.' "
The testimony of an eyewitness bearing directly on the occurrence was as follows:
Cross-examination:
On issue submitted as to liability and amount, the court charged the jury, if they believed the evidence, to answer the issue: "Yes; $1,000, with interest." Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.
Winston & Matthews, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pioneer Seafoods Co.
...meaning of an insurance policy although caused by another's intentional wrong. The general rule is thus expressed in Clay v. State Insurance Co., 174 N.C. 642, 94 S.E. 289, L.R.A. 1918B, 508: "As used in a policy insuring against death sustained through external, violent, and accidental mea......
-
Poole v. Imperial Mutual Life & Health Ins. Co.
... ... 1 Corpus Juris, p. 960 ... A case ... to some extent in illustration of the position occurs in our ... own reports in Clay v. Insurance Co., 174 N.C. 642, ... 94 S.E. 289, L. R. A. 1918B, 508. And applying the principles ... approved in these authorities, we are of ... ...
-
Podesta v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...taking the chance of being killed. O'Bar v. Southern Life & Health Insurance Co., 232 Ala. 459, 168 So. 580; Clay v. State Insurance Co., 174 N.C. 642, 94 S.E. 289, L.R. A.1918B, 508; Meister v. General Accident, Fire & Assurance Corp., 92 Or. 96, 179 P. 913, 4 A.L.R. In this case, not only......
-
Scarborough v. World Ins. Co., 22
...attending. Podesta v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 150 S.W.2d 596. It was said by Hoke, J., in Clay v. State Ins. Co., 174 N.C. 642, 94 S.E. 289, 290, L.R.A.1918B, 508, that 'the true test of liability, in cases of that character, is whether the insured, being in the wrong, was 'the......