Goethe v. New York Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1937
• Docket Number: 14452.
• Citation: 190 S.E. 451,183 S.C. 199
• Parties: GOETHE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

190 S.E. 451

183 S.C. 199

GOETHE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

No. 14452.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 11, 1937

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Jasper County; J. Henry Johnson, Judge.

Action by Inez Goethe, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas A Goethe, against the New York Life Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomas Lumpkin & Cain, of Columbia, and Chas. E. Perry, Jr., of Ridgeland, for appellant.

H Klugh Purdy, of Ridgeland, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The defendant, New York Life Insurance Company, issued its policy to one Thomas A. Goethe, on February 4, 1927, insuring his life in the sum of $2,000. The insurance contract carried, also, a provision known as a double indemnity, which clause provided that a further sum of $2,000 would be paid by the defendant "upon receipt of due proof that the death of the insured resulted directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injury effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means, and occurred within ninety days after such injury." Another portion of the double indemnity provision, germane to this inquiry, contains this language: "Double indemnity shall not be payable if the insured's death resulted * * * directly or indirectly from infirmity of mind or body, from illness or disease. * * * "

While this insurance was in force Goethe died on April 9, 1934, and this action was then brought on the contract of insurance by the plaintiff as administratrix of his estate, upon the theory and on the allegation that his death was the result of accidental bodily injury, within the scope and meaning of the contract. It is alleged in the complaint that the sum of $2,000, the amount of the life insurance, has been paid by the defendant, but that payment of the double indemnity in the sum of $2,000 has been refused; and judgment is demanded for this amount, with interest. The defendant denies liability and resists payment of the insurance, alleging that Goethe's death resulted from natural causes, disease, and that for death so resulting there is no liability under the terms of the policy.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount, and the defendant has appealed to this court, assigning error based upon the refusal of the trial judge to grant its motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict.

The first position taken by the appellant is that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the insured's death was the result of heart disease, either angina pectoris or coronary thrombosis; and therefore that the double indemnity is not recoverable. This and all other issues presented make necessary an examination and statement of the evidence.

In substance, the undisputed evidence is that the insured was a man between 40 and 50 years of age, who operated a small mercantile establishment and also engaged in farming operations. On the morning of his death, April 9, 1934, he arose at his usual hour, and after breakfast he walked over his farm, returning to his store about 9 o'clock, where he remained until about 11 o'clock. At that time he received a message from a field hand that it was necessary to burn certain new ground in order to prepare the land for plowing. He thereupon went to the field, and together with two young negro field hands commenced the operation of burning off the new ground, preparatory to plowing. They were so engaged for about 40 minutes, and had completed burning over the land which he desired to have plowed, when the wind arose and spread the fire from a burning stump into an adjoining pasture, which was covered with broomstraw about 4 feet high. In order to protect the pasture, the insured and his two negro helpers endeavored to extinguish the fire. They fought it violently and vigorously, attempting to beat it down with pine tops, described as being about 6 feet in length, and succeeded in extinguishing the pasture fire in about 20 minutes, but only after it had burned over an acre of land.

The two field hands testified that after this exertion they were tired, hot, and perspiring, and one of them said that he had never fought a fire as hard as he fought this one. But neither of them suffered any physical indisposition as the result of the work. Immediately after the fire was subdued, the insured lay down in the shade of a tree, placed his hand over his chest, and made the statement that he was unable to get back to his house, a half mile away, and requested one of the negroes to go to the house and ask his wife to come for him in the automobile. He gave every evidence of complete exhaustion, appeared to be suffering severe pain, breathed with difficulty, and was perspiring profusely. His wife reached him in about ten minutes, and he told her that he was very sick, and wished to be taken to the house. Mrs. Goethe said that he was very pale, that his hand was across his chest, but that he got into the automobile without assistance, and when he reached home he got out unaided and went to the house, at which time he was still hot and perspiring. He went into the living room and sat upon the floor for about 20 minutes, with his back supported by a chair. During this time, at his request, he was given a dose of soda water. His wife suggested that she call the doctor, but he demurred, and stated that he would soon be all right, and within a few minutes he appeared to feel better. Upon leaving the living room, the insured went into his bedroom, where, with the assistance of his wife, he bathed, undressed, and went to bed. While still apparently very sick, he had recovered some of his normal color, and seemed to feel better. She stayed with him about 10 minutes, when she was summoned to the store nearby; and, after being there about 2 minutes, she called back to a servant girl, who was on the house porch, to ask the insured how he felt. This girl went to the bedroom door, and then ran back to the porch, urgently calling Mrs. Goethe to return as quickly as she could because there was something wrong with the insured. She returned at once, and found him in a dying condition. The insured's face had turned a dark purple color, and he was barely breathing. Mrs. Goethe promptly summoned a physician, but the insured expired before the doctor arrived.

As already indicated, our first inquiry has to do with whether or not there is in this record any testimony tending to show that the death of the insured was the result of injury from accidental means. The burden was doubtless upon the plaintiff to present evidence from which the jury could properly find that the death of the deceased resulted from injuries of the nature or kind against which the policy insured him. The plaintiff contends that the insured died from a heatstroke, as a consequence of the intense heat to which he was exposed, while fighting the unexpected fire which had invaded the pasture. The appellant vigorously argues that death resulted from heart disease, either angina pectoris or coronary thrombosis.

Physicians who testified for the defendant declared heatstroke or sunstroke-the two being analogous terms; one being caused from artificial heat, and the other from the direct rays of the sun-to be a disease.

Dr. C. P. Ryan, testifying for the plaintiff, gave it as his opinion that heatstroke is not a disease, but would come in the category of bodily injury, brought about through accident or by what might be called an unexpected event. Dr. Ryan testified that he had always known the insured, and had been his family physician for a period of 9 years prior to his death. He said that Mr. Goethe came to his office one month prior to his death, and stated that a friend of his had recently been examined by a physician and was found to be suffering from some disease, and for this reason he himself wished a physical examination. Thereupon he gave him the same type of examination as that required by the defendant insurance company when it sold him the policy; and, he stated, "I checked him from head to foot, heart, lungs, kidneys, and his blood pressure, and I found nothing wrong with him then."

In answer to a hypothetical question, containing the facts developed during the trial, embracing the condition and symptoms of the insured immediately prior to his death, this physician expressed it as his opinion that the most probable cause of death was heat exhaustion or heatstroke, and gave a medical explanation and definition of heatstroke.

When asked, on cross-examination, if he thought that the heat generated from the burning broomstraw was sufficient to produce a heatstroke, he replied that it not only could, but that it did so happen in this case. Dr. Ryan also said that certain symptoms are common to many diseases, and that some of the symptoms shown by the deceased were common to some types of heart disease, and among these mentioned angina. He said that the disease known as angina pectoris is usually accompanied by pain in the chest; that the patient invariably places his hand upon his chest, loses color, and perspires profusely.

Dr. A Ritter was called by the defendant, and gave it as his opinion, after hearing all of the testimony, that the symptoms shown by the deceased pointed almost conclusively either to angina pectoris or coronary thrombosis. He qualified this statement by stating that some of these symptoms would lead him to believe that the insured's death could have been due to heatstroke or sunstroke. This physician had had actual experience with three or four cases of heatstroke, and stated that when the patients were brought to him they were either unconscious or became unconscious shortly afterwards, but that none died. ...