Hamblet v. Mutual Union Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1922
• Docket Number: 116893.
• Citation: 206 P. 836,120 Wash. 31
• Parties: HAMBLET v. MUTUAL UNION INS. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

206 P. 836

120 Wash. 31

HAMBLET v. MUTUAL UNION INS. CO.

No. 116893.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 5, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford, Judge.

Action by Margaret Hamblet against the Mutual Union Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Remann & Gordon, of Tacoma, for appellant.

W. W Keyes and J. H. Blakiston, both of Tacoma, and J. H. Gordon of Tacoma, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On September 20, 1920, the appellant, Mutual Union Insurance Company, issued its policy of insurance to one Sam Hamblet insuring him 'against loss resulting from bodily injuries, effected directly and independently of all other causes, through external, violent and accidental means * * * as specified in the following schedule, subject to the provisions and limitations hereinafter contained. The schedule following provided that for loss of life the principal sum of the policy would be paid, and elsewhere provided for its payment to the wife of the assured. Among the limitations contained in the policy was one providing that the 'insurance * * * shall not cover an injury, fatal or nonfatal, caused directly or indirectly by participating in any fight or other altercation or while engaging in any unlawful act.'

During the life of the policy the assured died in the city of Tacoma from the effects of a revolver shot wound, inflicted upon him by a police officer of that city. This is an action brought upon the policy by the wife of the assured. The action was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and from a judgment entered therein in favor of the wife, the insurance company appeals.

There is no serious dispute as to the facts. The assured had been for many years prior to his death a resident of the city of Tacoma. He was, however, unknown to the police officer mentioned. Some time after 7 o'clock in the evening of the day on which he was killed, he left his house in the residence section of the city to walk down to the business section. The police officer testified in substance that, while he (the officer) was walking his usual beat, at about 8 o'clock in the evening, dressed in his police uniform, he saw the assured turn a corner and start in his direction; that immediately thereafter the assured started to run towards an alley leading to an adjacent street; that a 'hold-up' had been reported as occurring in that vicinity a short time before, and, thinking the assured's action suspicious, he called to him to halt; that the accused did not stop, but continued to run, entering the alley; that he then ran to the alleyway and saw the assured still running, being then some 100 feet ahead of him; that he fired his revolver into the air, again crying, 'Halt!' that the accused continued running when he fired a second shot into the ground; that after this shot the assured stopped, when the officer approached him and questioned him as to the cause of his running; that he received no answer, and started to search the assured, when he discovered that he was wounded; that he took him to a place where a seat was found, had an ambulance called, and had him sent to a hospital.

The police officer was called at the instance of the respondent. A woman who witnessed the occurrence, called by the appellant, testifies that the assured was crossing the street towards the alley when she first observed him, and that at first he was walking very fast, starting to run as he approached the alley. In other respects her testimony does not differ materially from that of the police officer.

The...