Hanley v. Fid. & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1917
• Docket Number: No. 30859.,30859.
• Citation: 180 Iowa 805,161 N.W. 114
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: HANLEY v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO.

180 Iowa 805

161 N.W. 114

HANLEY

v.FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO.

No. 30859.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 20, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. H. McHenry, Judge.

The plaintiff, as trustee for Edith S. Hatfield, administratrix of the estate of William J. Hatfield, deceased, instituted this action at law upon a benefit certificate of accident insurance issued to said William J. Hatfield in his lifetime, and of which certificate the said Edith S. Hatfield is the sole beneficiary. The defendant by its answer admitted the membership of William J. Hatfield and the issuance to him of the certificate sued upon, but denies that he was injured or came to his death in any manner or from any cause against which the association had undertaken to insure him, and averred that his death was the result of disease and bodily infirmity. There was a trial to a jury resulting in verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Sullivan & Sullivan, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Dowell, McLennan & Groesbeck, Thomas B. Hanley and Parker, Parrish & Miller, of Des Moines, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The defendant is an accident insurance company having its principal office in the city of New York. On July 12, 1911, said company issued to William J. Hatfield, a resident of Portland, Or., a policy or benefit certificate, insuring him, among other risks, against bodily injury sustained at any time during the term of one year “through accidental means and resulting directly independently and exclusively of all other causes in death.” This policy was extended or renewed at the end of the year, and was in force on June 14, 1913, when Hatfield died. Within a few days after his death the widow notified the company thereof and of her claim that such death was the result of accident and asked to be furnished blanks upon which to prepare formal proofs of loss. After some correspondence the company declined to furnish the blanks and refused to admit any liability upon its contract, claiming that the death of the insured did not result from accidental injury within the meaning of the policy. The widow, having been appointed administratrix of the estate of the deceased, and acting under authority of the court, appointed the plaintiff herein her trustee for the collection of said insurance, who thereafter instituted this action for that purpose.

The petition recites the issuance of the policy and its maintenance in force until the death of the insured as above stated, and alleged that his death resulted from bodily injury from external, violent, and accidental means, independent of all other causes, which injury was occasioned in the following manner: The deceased was at his home, and at the time in question was engaged in attempting to fasten a board or false bottom on a small box standing on the floor of the room. In so doing he made use of a ratchet screwdriver. Having laid the board on the box and placed a screw in position to be driven through the board, deceased adjusted the tool for that purpose, and while bending over it to bring his weight upon said tool, and thus force the screw into place, the box tipped and the point of the driver slipped from the screw causing him to fall forward with his whole weight upon the upper end of said tool which struck him in the breast injuring him in such manner that he died on the same or following day. It is further alleged that due proofs of loss were furnished the defendant within one month after the death of the insured. By way of amendment the plaintiff also pleads that defendant, having been duly notified of the death of the insured, and being requested to furnish blanks for formal proofs of loss, refused such request, and denied all liability on account of such death, thereby waiving any other or further proofs, and is therefore estopped to plead or prove want of such proofs as a defense to this action.

The defendant does not deny the making of the contract sued upon, or that the same was still in force at the date of Hatfield's death, but does deny that such death was caused by or was the result of any accident or injury against which the deceased was insured. It also alleges affirmatively that the insured died from natural causes, diseases and bodily infirmity.

The evidence on the part of plaintiff tends to show that deceased was a man of about 58 years of age, 5 feet 11 inches in height, and weighed 247 pounds. He was a traveling salesman, and had been engaged in that business for many years. He had returned home from one of his trips but a short time before his death, and his wife testifies that he seemed to be in perfect health and was making no complaint of any kind. On the day in question he had been in the garden with his wife, gathering flowers, and later walked down town, where he procured the board and materials for fixing the box. Returning home, he proceeded with the work in a manner described by the witness as follows:

“He was leaning over the box like this, and you have to press on it hard to turn the screw, and he got over it with his whole weight, and when he had the screwdriver pulled out, the box toppled over and threw the screwdriver out of the head of the screw, and he fell against it with an awful thud. At the time he held the head of the screwdriver against his breast as he pushed it down with the handle of the screwdriver. Q. How was he pressing upon this? A. With his full weight, right over, like this, against it. He had put in three screws before he fell. After he fell he was just crumpled up, and could not get his breath, and just struggled like he was dying, and I thought he was. I stood on the other side looking right towards him. He was standing on the opposite side of the box from the screw he was trying to drive in, and I stood right on this side, looking right at him, watching him doing it. I suppose I was 2 1/2 feet from him. After he fell he was making an awful noise, struggling just like he could not get his breath at all, and we, the maid and I, grabbed him and dragged him to a chair, and he kept getting whiter and whiter, and I turned around to the telephone and called a doctor. During all this time he seemed to be in most terrible pain and agony. His face was ashen pale, and his lips were purple. The doctor came in about an hour. During this time he was in awful agony, seemed to be in terrible agony, clawing at his breast, and this continued until the doctor gave him some medicine. The doctor gave him some medicine, but it never eased him. He got so he did not groan so terribly, but never got easier after that, and died about 2 o'clock in the morning.”

The wife appears to have been the only person present at the time of the alleged injury except a housemaid, Maggie Bell, who was not called as a witness by either party. Some time during the following month, and about three weeks after burial, the body of the deceased was exhumed at the instance of the defendant, and a post mortem examination made by physicians. Upon the information alleged to have been obtained by means of this examination the defense principally rests. Five physicians attending the autopsy made and signed a written report of their findings. Omitting therefrom details which do not appear to disclose any facts of material importance, we quote the following statement descriptive of the heart and blood vessels:

“Heart and blood vessels. Clotted blood in pericardium, probably from a puncture of the heart by the embalmer's trochar; such a puncture is present near the apex.

Marked atheromatous condition of the entire thoracic aorta with an atheromatous ulcer three-eighths inch in diameter in the ascending portion. There is a blood clot between the coats of the arch of the aorta and extending into the descending portion about eight inches in length in entire extent, and perhaps two-thirds of the circumference of the vessel.

Heart: Enlarged to nearly twice its normal size. Marked amount of fat distributed over its entire surface. Left ventricle markedly hypertrophied. Mitral valves markedly atheromatous, thickened and shortened. Aortic semilunar valves atheromatous. The coronary arteries show a marked degree of atheromatous change. There is blood diffused into the tissue of the base of the heart.

No evidence of injury to brain. No evidence of apoplexy. Blood vessels at base are atheromatous.

We, the undersigned, are of the opinion that the cause of death was a hemorrhage into the wall of the arch of the aorta. We also believe that the diagnosis of angina pectoris was justified by the autopsy findings.”

If we understand the technical terms employed in the report, an “atheromatous condition” is one indicating a degenerative condition of the inner coat of the blood vessels, and a “hypertrophied” heart is one enlarged beyond its natural or normal proportions. Aside from the testimony of the undertaker, to the effect that in preparing the body for burial he discovered no bruises or marks of injury, the evidence offered by the defendant consists entirely in the evidence of the physicians who united in the report of the autopsy, and another physician who was examined as an expert concerning the normal condition and appearance of the human heart and as to the result or effect of certain abnormal conditions. The witness last mentioned was asked and gave his opinion of the effect of a blow upon the breast or chest, and whether such a blow could result in the rupture of an aneurism or dilation of the aorta or large artery through which the heart supplies pure blood to the system. As witnesses on the stand the several physicians attending the autopsy united with a fair degree of unanimity in expressing the opinion stated in their report that the deceased died of angina pectoris. This term appears, however, to be one of somewhat indefinite significance, descriptive of the symptoms arising from a variety of causes. It may be due, says one of the defendant's expert...