Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Windham

• Decision Date: 08 July 1988
• Citation: 529 So.2d 967
• Parties: LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. James M. WINDHAM. 86-1164.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 967

529 So.2d 967

LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. James M. WINDHAM.

86-1164.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 8, 1988.

Edward P. Turner, Jr., and Halron W. Turner of Turner, Onderdonk & Kimbrough, Chatom, for appellant.

William T. Coplin, Jr., Demopolis, and William L. Utsey, Butler, for appellee.

STEAGALL, Justice.

Liberty National Life Insurance Company appeals from a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff James Windham, as beneficiary of a life insurance policy on his son, in his suit to recover under a double indemnity provision in that policy. We reverse.

Windham's son, David, underwent back surgery twice for a job-related injury and experienced severe pain afterwards to the extent that he was unable to work and had to live with his parents. David's physician, Dr. Judy Travis, prescribed two drugs, Darvon and propoxyphene, which he took continuously to relieve his lower back pain. Because the medication was insufficient, David began drinking in an effort to eliminate the pain.

On January 11, 1984, David came home after he had been drinking and went straight to his bedroom, complaining that he was having trouble breathing. After David vomited in his bathroom, his brother put him in bed, taking care to lay him on his stomach in the event that he became sick again. His brother went into the living room, and when he returned 15 or 30 minutes later, he found David dead.

Liberty National paid Windham the $15,000 face amount of the life insurance policy on David. Windham sued when Liberty National refused to pay an additional $15,000 under the accidental death provision of the policy. Liberty National moved for a directed verdict at the close of Windham's case and at the close of all of the evidence, both of which were denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Windham, and Liberty National moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial, which was also denied. Liberty National claims the court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict, because, it argues, David's death was not within the double indemnity provision of the contract. We agree.

Paragraph 1 of the double indemnity agreement provides:

"1. BENEFITS--Upon receipt at its Home Office 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 as experienced by a visible wound or contusion on the exterior of the body (except in case of drowning or internal injuries revealed by autopsy) ... the Company will ... pay to the beneficiary ... the Additional Indemnity for Death by Accidental Means...."

The thrust of Liberty National's argument is that David's death was not a result of "external, violent and accidental means"; Liberty National points out that the autopsy report, as well as the two doctors who testified as experts for Windham and Liberty National, stated that the immediate cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest due to asphyxiation secondary...