Gates v. Travelers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 12117.,12117.
• Parties: GATES v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

218 S.W. 927

GATES v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

No. 12117.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 16, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Nat. M. Shelton, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by Mrs. Ella Gates against the Travelers' Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Watts, Gentry & Lee and Wm. V. O'Donnell, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

E. O. Jones, of La Plata, Guthrie & Franklin, of Macon, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is a suit on a policy of insurance which insured one E. M. Gates "against bodily injuries" and death "effected through external, violent and accidental means." The policy further provided that "this insurance shall not cover disappearance, or suicide, sane or insane." Plaintiff, who was the insured's wife, was the beneficiary in the policy. The case was tried without the aid of a jury, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $7,500, the full amount of the insurance.

The facts show that the insured was cashier of the La Plata Savings Bank of La Plata, Mo. A few days before his death, he, in company with his wife, visited his farm, where he had gone to look at his hogs which were sick with cholera. On the day of his death, the insured returned to his farm. The witness Chatfield, who was employed by the insured to run the farm, testified that the insured arrived at the farm about 10:20 a. m.; "that he was just looking over the place and looking at the stock;" that about 12 o'clock Chatfield asked him to go to dinner, but the insured objected, saying he would rather not. The insured told Chatfield that "he would go up to the other place, a quarter of a mile from the house where" Chatfield lived, "and look at some cattle up there, and if any one called him he would be up there." At that time he appeared as well as usual. That is the last time insured was seen alive. Being anxious about the insured's absence, Chatfield went to an old vacant house, which had been a residence and had been used to store hay and straw, and saw insured's dead body lying on the floor. This was about 1 p. m. A two-ounce bottle containing a small quantity of carbolic acid was found five feet east of deceased's body. Insured's tongue and the inside of his mouth were burned, and he had the usual marks of carbolic acid burns. The evidence shows that it would take a great deal less than a two-ounce bottle of carbolic acid to kill a man. In insured's hip pocket was found the following letter, in his handwriting:

"Dear Mother and Baby: This is a hard thing to do, but I think it is best, as I cannot stand this strain and disgrace on you and I know you will be better off, and you have plenty of friends to help you in any way you need, and they will gladly do it—yours and mine, too. You can manage things better than I can. Pay all debts and keep your home and you will have some besides. All papers in basement.

                    "Goodbye,                    Daddy."
                

On reverse side of letter:

"You can get Franklin or Mills to help you if you need any besides Jones. You will be all right and raise the baby. This is all my fault. I must be wrong some way. You have plenty of friends to help you in any way better than I can, perhaps. Hogs still sick. Everything wrong."

Franklin, Mills, and Jones were lawyers.

From the evidence there is no question but that the insured committed suicide. Richey v. W. 0. W., 163 Mo. App. 235, 146 S. W. 461. The real question in the case is whether the evidence shows that the insured was insane at the time he took his life. While the policy provides that even in case of insanity there should be no insurance, by virtue of section 6945, R. S. 1909, that portion of the policy that provided that defendant should not be liable in case deceased committed suicide while insane is inoperative (Brunswick v. Standard Acc't Ins. Co., [Sup.] 213 S. W. 45), yet the provision that should the insured commit suicide while sane is valid (Scales v. Nat'l Life & Acc't Ins. Co. [Sup.] 212 S. W. 8). A leading case on the question of what constitutes insanity within the meaning of insurance policies is the English case of Borradaile v. Hunter, 5 Man. & G., 639. It was held in that case that—

"* * * If the deceased was laboring under no delusion as to the physical consequences of the act he was committing, if he knew that it was water into which he was about to throw himself, and that the consequence of his leaping from...