Leman v. The Manhattan Life Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 01 May 1894
• Docket Number: 11,427
• Citation: 15 So. 388,46 La.Ann. 1189
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: MRS. CAROLINE LEMAN v. THE MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

15 So. 388

46 La.Ann. 1189

MRS. CAROLINE LEMAN v. THE MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 11,427

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 1, 1894

Rehearing refused.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Ellis J.

A. H Leonard and Morris Marks Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dinkelspiel & Hart Attorneys, for Defendant and Appellee.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

The plaintiff sues on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant on the life of her husband. The defence is, the husband committed suicide, and the policy excludes liability in cases of self-destruction, sane or insane. The jury found for the defendant and plaintiff appeals from the judgment on the verdict.

The proofs of loss furnished the company, i.e statements of the undertaker, physician, agent and friend, as well as the coroner's inquest, stated suicide as the cause of death. The defendant offering these proofs insisted plaintiff was bound by them, that is, defendant objected to any testimony contradicting these proofs. The court admitted the testimony. It is to be observed at the outset, the cause of death in this case is purely a matter of opinion. There is no testimony whatever on the subject, except the fact the insured was found dead from a mortal gunshot wound, with a pistol wedged in the bend of his thumb, and the body so disposed, as will be discussed in another place, as to suggest inferences entirely consistent with accidental death or at least not of a character to exclude every supposit on but suicide. If opinions of witnesses as to the cause of death are to be accepted as conclusive, contained in statements which the company exacts under their policy, it is a harsh application of the supposed rule as to the effect of such statements. In our opinion, neither reason nor authority support the contention of the company in this respect. We think the proofs of death were admissible to be weighed by the jury with other testimony administered. Such was the ruling of the lower court and we sustain it. See Home Association vs. Sargent, 142 U.S. 699; Company vs. Newton, 22 Wall, p. 36; 26 An. 404. The authorities, perhaps, do not go the full length here affirmed, but they tend to give the proofs of death admissibility, but certainly do not assert their conclusiveness. The better opinion is the insurer is not estopped by the proof. Bliss Life Insurance, Sec. 265.

The discussion on the point that suicide should be regarded as proceeding from insanity, and not bar recovery, even though the policy stipulated no recovery in cases of self-destruction, has been ended, as life policies now usually, we believe, contain what is known as the "sane or insane" clause, i.e., no recovery in cases of suicide, sane or insane. That clause is in this policy.

But still, notwithstanding the sane or insane clause, to defeat a recovery on this policy it must appear the deceased took his life. In this case the testimony, mainly the mute witness of the dead body, is all on which the company relies, besides the statement in the proof of loss from those who were possessed of no knowledge, save that afforded by the body of the deceased. There is in the record a mass of what is termed expert testimony. It of course consists of theories as to the cause of the death. The testimony is of those who testify from their experience in the use of firearms and from physicians who draw their inferences from the gunshot wound the position of the body and other circumstances. The admissibility of such testimony is at best doubtful. Bliss on Life Insurance, Secs. 378, 379. The court at last must determine the basis and potency of all such theories arising from all the facts. These facts are: The body found with the wound from a gunshot causing death, the...