Frame v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 2676 |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 76,358 Pa. 103 |
| Parties | Frame, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 25, 1947
Appeal, No. 170, March T., 1947, from judgment of C.P., Erie Co., Nov. T., 1945, No. 483, in case of Alice Frame v Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment reversed.
Assumpsit. Before EVANS, P.J.
Verdict for plaintiff; defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. granted. Plaintiff appealed.
Judgment reversed and record remanded with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.
William B. Washabaugh, Jr., for appellant.
M. E Graham , with him Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig , for appellee.
Before MAXEY, C.J., LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
The question concerns the amount of proof required of plaintiff in this action on an insurance policy to recover the amount payable if the death of the insured resulted solely from an accident.
The policy insured the life of David A. Frame in the amount of $5,000 and an additional $5,000 if his death occurred "as a result, directly and independently of all other causes, of bodily injuries, effected solely through external, violent and accidental means,...; provided, however, that no Accidental Death Benefit shall be payable if such death resulted... directly or indirectly from bodily or mental infirmity or disease in any form."
On November 20, 1944 the insured, 71 years of age, suffered a fall downstairs in his home; he sustained a fractured right hip, three broken ribs and a large bruise on the side of his head together with severe shock and pain; he was confined thereafter to his bed, grew progressively worse, and died January 8, 1945. The Insurance Company refused to pay the accidental death benefit of $5,000 and this suit was brought by his widow, Alice Frame, who was the beneficiary of the policy, to recover that amount. She obtained a verdict in her favor but the court entered judgment for defendant n.o.v. on the ground that her evidence did not sufficiently meet the terms of the policy upon which the Company's liability was conditioned. Plaintiff appeals.
The factual issues were (1) whether the insured's fall was due to his slipping on the stairway or to a possible attack of vertigo, and (2) whether a preexisting infirmity was a contributing cause of his death. It appeared that five years previously he had had a cerebral hemorrhage which had resulted in a partial paralysis of his right side and an impediment in his speech, and it was upon that fact that the Company based its defense.
The rule, as it has been generally stated, is that, where a policy has provisions such as those here contained and it appears that the death of the insured resulted from accidental injury acting in conjunction with a preexisting and substantial physical infirmity, recovery must be denied; plaintiff must show that the death was caused solely by external and accidental means, and if the proof points to a preexisting infirmity or abnormality which may have been a contributing factor he must also produce evidence to exclude that possibility: Lucas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company , 339 Pa. 277, 280, 14 A.2d 85, 86; Robia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 354 Pa. 313, 315, 316, 47 A.2d 152, 153. It should be added, however, that the word "possibility" in that connection is not to be taken in its absolute or literal sense, but rather as having the practical meaning which the law ordinarily ascribes to such abstract terms.
In the present case plaintiff produced testimony of eyewitnesses to the effect that the insured had ascended a few steps from the first to the second story of his house when he slipped and fell down the stairs after a vain attempt to save himself by clutching at a hanging curtain. There was testimony that the steps had been waxed, a fact which in itself would reasonably suggest the cause of the accident. Defendant propounded the theory that he might have had an attack of dizziness due to the high blood pressure or hypertension which had caused his stroke five years before but plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence established that during that entire period he had been in excellent systemic health, had never been in bed due to any illness, and had not had any attacks of vertigo. His physician, Dr. Switzer, testified that he had checked his blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial