Lavender v. Volunteer State Life, Ins. Co

Decision Date22 October 1934
Docket Number31374
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesLAVENDER et al. v. VOLUNTEER STATE LIFE, INS. CO

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled December 3, 1934.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Coahoma county HON. WM. A. ALCORN JR., Judge.

Action by Mrs. Regina Trapp Lavender, individually, and as executrix of the estate of Weldon K. Lavender, deceased, against the Volunteer State Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

G. E. Williams, of Clarksdale, for appellant.

The death of insured was in consequence of bodily injury effected through accidental means.

4 Cooley's Br. on Ins. 3156; Union Accident Co. v Willis, L. R. A. 1915D, 357; Union Casualty Co. v. Harrall, 98 Tenn. 591, 60 A. S. R. 873; Lovelace v. Travelers Protective Association, 126 Mo. 104, 30 L. R. A. 209, 47 A. S. R. 638, 28 S.W. 877; U. S. Mutual Accident Association v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100; Dent v. Ry. Mail Association, 183 F. 840; Western Commercial Travelers Association v. Smith, 40 L. R. A. 653 (C. C. A. 8th); Lewis v. Ocean Accident & G. Corp., 224 N.Y. 18, 120 N.E. 56, 7 A. L. R. 1129; Interstate Accident Assn. v. Lewis, 257 F. 241, 552 (C. C. A.); Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 72 Miss. 333, 30 L. R. A. 206; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Hood, 124 Miss. 562; Beile v. Protective Assn., 135 S.W. 497; 4 A. L. R. 723, note; Clay v. State Ins. Co., 174 N.C. 642, L. R. A. 1918B, 508; Taliaferro v. Travelers Pro. Asso., 80 F. 368 (C. C. A.).

The provision in the insurance policy in the instant case in regard to contusions or wounds is in substance the same provision embodied in numerous policies which courts have heretofore been called on to construe. By the great weight of authority it is held when death ensues the dead body itself satisfies the requirements.

Trone v. Gen. Assurance Corp., 13 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 298; McClinchey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 6 A. S. R. 190; Parker v. North American Accident Ins. Co., 92 S.E. 88, L. R. A. 1917D, 1174; Feis v. U. S. Ins. Co., 39 A. L. R. 1008; 1 C. J. 434; Royal Casualty Co. v. Nelson, 153 S.W. 674; Barry v. U. S. Mut. Assn., 22 F. 712; 39 A. L. R. 1011; 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1022, notes; Horshfall v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 63 L. R. A. 425; 14 R. C. L. 1250.

In Empire L. Ins. Co. v. Einstein (Ga.), 77 S.E. 209, it was held that a provision limiting liability if the insured should die as the result of a violation of law, would not prevent recovery where the evidence tended merely to show that the insured used approbrious words and struck the person who shot him.

Murray v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 48 Am. Rep. 658; Baker v. Supreme Lodge, 103 Miss. 396; Lodge v. Bradley, 3 Ann. Cas. 872; Bradley v. Ins. Co., 6 Am. Rep. 115; Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 90 Tenn. 256, 25 A. S. R. 691.

If the appellee had desired a contract which it could have contested on the ground that the insured though coming to his death through accidental means, such accidental death was a result of homicide or the result of a violation of law, these exceptions could easily have been written into the incontestable clause, and before such exceptions are available to the insurer it is necessary that they be incorporated in the contestable clause.

14 R. C. L. 1233; Sun Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 94 A. S. R. 383; Patterson v. Ins. Co., 42 L. R. A. 253; Fore v. New York Life Ins. Co., 67 A. L. R. 1358; United Order v. Overton, 83 So. 59; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lovejoy, 78 So. 299; L. R. A. 1918D, 865; Wright v. Mutual Ben. Ins. Co., 6 L. R. A. 731; Weeks v. New York Life Ins. Co., 122 S.E. 586, 35 A. L. R. 1482; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 65 L.Ed. 155; Williams v. Ins. Co. of Va., 3 Orleans App. 34; Brady v. Fidelity Mutual Life Assn., 13 Orleans App. 35; Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 130 So. 402.

Courts in numerous cases have held that insurers are precluded from asserting a defense of fraud in suits on insurance policies containing incontestable clauses, on the theory that the incontestable clause prescribes a short statute of limitations.

Arnold v. Equitable, 228 F. 157; Great W. Life Ins. Co. v. Snavely, 206 F. 20; Weil v. Fed. L. Ins. Co., Ann. Cas. 1915D, 995, 106 N.E. 246; Ind. Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. McGinnis, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 192, 101 N.E. 289; Kas. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Whitehead, 13 Am. Cas. 301, 93 S.W. 609; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. New, 136 A. S. R. 326, 51 So. 61; Reagan v. Union Mutual, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 821, 78 N.E. 217; Harris v. Ins. Co., Ann. Cas. 1914C, 648, 154 S.W. 68; Drew v. Metropolitan, 79 N. J. L. 398, 75 A. 167; Wright v. Mutual, 6 L. R. A. 731, 23 N.E. 186; American Trust Co. v. Ins. Co., 92 S.E. 706; Brady v. Prudential Ins. Co., 32 A. 102; Murray v. Ins. Co., 53 L. R. A. 742; Philadelphia L. Ins. Co. v. Arnold, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 706; Clement v. N. Y. Life, 70 A. S. R. 650; Patterson v. Ins. Co., 42 L. R. A. 253; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Peeler, 6 A. L. R. 441; Leigender v. Pac. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 135 So. 85; Insurance Co. v. Carroll, 130 So. 402; 37 C. J. 540.

Miller, Miller & Martin, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Brewer & Montgomery, of Clarksdale, and Charles A. Sisson, of Winona, for appellee.

The provision requiring proof of death resulting through accidental means is valid.

Berry v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 165. Miss. 405, 142 So. 445.

The provision that the double indemnity rider does not cover death resulting from any violation of the law is valid.

6 Couch on Insurance, sec. 1236, pp. 4511-4512; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Hunt, 136 Miss. 156, 98 So. 62; Bosler v. Modern Woodmen of America, 100 Neb. 570, 160 N.W. 966, L. R. A. 1917C, 195; Lamb v. Liberty Ins. Co., 129 Kan. 234, 282 P. 699; Guy v. Grand Lodge, C. K. P., 46 S.W.2d 1057; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Perryman, 162 Miss. 864, 140 So. 349; Georgia Casualty Co. v. Cotton Mills Products Co., 159 Miss. 396, 132 So. 73; Continental Casualty Co. v. Hall, 118 Miss. 871, 80 So. 335; Am. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Nirdlinger, 113 Miss. 74, 73 So. 875; McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 151 So. 349; Bradley v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 70 F.2d 988.

Proof of death given the Insurance Company does not show that the death of the insured resulted from accidental means.

It is the general rule of law, supported by the authorities, that there can be no recovery under a policy insuring against the result of an injury effected through accidental means, where such injury, although totally unexpected, fortuitous and undesigned, and in that sense accidental, is occasioned by a voluntary act on the part of the insured, executed in an expected and ordinary way, since such injury, though accidental, is not effected through accidental means.

Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. Stacey's Executors, 143 F. 271, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657, 6 Ann. Cas. 955; Hutton v. States Acc. Ins. Co., 267 Ill. 267, 108 N.E. 296, L. R. A. 1915E 127, Ann. Cas. 1916C 577; United States Casualty Co. v. Malone, 126 Miss. 73, 87 So. 896; Barham et al. v. State Life Ins. Co. of Indiana, 135 So. 730; Prudential Casualty Co. v. Curry, 65 So. 852; Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al., 54 S.Ct. 461, 78 L.Ed. 619, 90 A. L. R. 1382; Rock v. Travelers Ins. Co., 172 Cal. 462, 156 P. 1029, L. R. A. 1916E 1197.

It is not enough that death or injury should be unexpected or unforeseen, but there must be some element of unexpectedness in the preceding act or occurrence which leads to the injury or death.

Carswell v. Railway Mail Assn., 8 F.2d 612; Shanberg v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 158 F. 1, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1206; Olinsky v. Railway Mail Assn., 182 Cal. 669, 189 P. 835, 14 A. L. R. 784; Fane v. National Railway Mail Clerks, 197 A.D. 145, 188 N.Y.S. 222; 14 A. L. R. 790; Schmid v. Indiana Travelers Accident Assn., 42 Ind.App. 483, 85 N.E. 1032; Feder v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Assn., 107 Iowa 338, 78 N.W. 25, 45 L. R. A. 693, 70 Am. St. Rep. 212; Parker v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 152 So. 583; Baldwin v. No. American Accident Ins. Co. of Chicago, 22 F.2d 111; Lyon v. Travelers Protective Assn. of America, 25 F.2d 596, 49 S.Ct. 9; Seipel v. Equity Life Ins. Co. of Iowa, 59 F.2d 544.

The burden is on the appellants to prove death through accidental means.

Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Maher, 70 F.2d 441; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blum, 270 F. 946; United States Casualty Company of New York v. Malone, 126 Miss. 73, 87 So. 896; Mass. Protective Assn. v. Cranford, 137 Miss. 901; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 39 F.2d 376; Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford v. McConkey, 127 U.S. 661, 666, 8 S.Ct. 1360, 32 L.Ed. 308.

The death of Lavender resulted from a violation of the law.

The double indemnity rider expressly states that it does not cover death resulting from any violation of the law.

Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Hunt, 136 Miss. 156, 98 So. 62; Am. National Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 152 Miss. 811, 118 So. 898; Osborne v. Peoples Benevolent Industrial Life Ins. Co., 139 So. 733; Travelers Insurance Company v. Seaver, 22 L.Ed. 155.

Where the insured brings about an assault upon himself by his own wrongful act, or where he, under such circumstances that he would naturally be presumed to know that the injury is likely to be inflicted, voluntarily incurs an obvious hazard of this character, or places himself in a position that he may be reasonably expected to bring about an assault upon him, an injury so received is not effected by accidental means.

Talliferro v. Trav. Pro. Assn. of America, 80 F. 368; Metropolitan Cas. Co. v. Chambers, 136 Ark. 84, 206 S.W. 64; Price v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 169 Cal. 800, 147 P. 1175; Postler v. Travelers Ins. Co., 158 P. 1022; Gray v. Western State Life Ins. Co., 298 P. 512; Hutton v. States Acc. Ins. Co....

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 31, 1938
    ...... v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 102 S.W. 682. . . If in. one state of case, the plaintiff may recover, and on another,. he cannot recover and the evidence for the ... . . U. S. Cas. Co. v. Malone, 126 Miss. 173, 87 So. 115;. Lavender v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 171 Miss. 169, 157. So. 101. . . The. policy ......
  • New York Life Ins. Co. v. Boling
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 19, 1936
    ...... . . Section. 88, New York Law; Lavender v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 157 So. 101, 171 Miss. 169. . . The. right of ......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 10, 1941
    ......F. & G. Co. (Cal.), 293. P. 812; Callan v. Empire State Surety Co., 20 Calif. App. 483; Smith v. Fid. & Dep. Co. ... . . . Am. Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Nidlinger, 73 So. 875,. 113 Miss. 84, ...73, 159 Miss. 396;. Lavender v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 157 So. 101, 171 Miss. ......
  • Vance v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 27, 1939
    ......S. R. 899, 75 N.W. 980;. Whitfield v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 205 U.S. 489. 51. L.Ed. 895; State Mutual Life Assur. Co. v. Stapp. 72. F.2d 142; Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 254 ... v. New York Life Ins. Co., 161 So. 462; New York Life. Ins. Co. v. Reedy, 180, So. 607; Lavender v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 157 So. 101, 171 Miss. 169; United Securities Life Ins. & Trust ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT