Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins

Decision Date23 December 1942
Docket NumberNo. 10350.,10350.
Citation132 F.2d 352
PartiesMODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. WATKINS. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INS. SOC. v. SAME.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Walker Liddon, of Fort Pierce, Fla., Geo. G. Perrin and George H. McDonald, both of Rock Island, Ill., and Rainey T. Wells, of Omaha, Neb., for appellants.

R. K. Lewis, of West Palm Beach, Fla., and Dewey Crawford, of Fort Pierce, Fla., for Gertrude Watkins.

Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

Gertrude Watkins, as beneficiary, brought actions against Modern Woodmen of America, and Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, to recover on two $5,000 policies of life insurance issued by these companies to her husband, Tom E. Watkins. On motion of the defendants the actions were consolidated for trial. The consolidated cases were then tried to a jury which found the issues in favor of the plaintiff. Judgments were entered on the verdicts, and the insurance companies have appealed.

The insurance companies defended the actions on the ground that Watkins committed suicide by taking potassium cyanide, a deadly poison. At the close of all the testimony, they moved for directed verdicts on the ground that suicide, a complete defense, had been conclusively established by the evidence. Overruling of the motion is assigned as error.

In the early morning hours of December 15, 1940, Tom E. Watkins was found in an unconscious condition, lying on his back in front of his parked automobile on the public highway ten miles west of Boynton, Florida. Within a short time thereafter he died. He had been drinking intoxicating liquors the day and night before his death; and Robert Sutton, who talked with him about forty-five minutes before he was found in the highway, testified that Watkins came to his nearby beer place early in the morning and inquired of his whereabouts, explaining "I have been drunk all night". The windows of his automobile were closed, and a can of potassium cyanide was found in the car in a paper sack. The lid was on the can, but a portion of the poison was missing. A post mortem examination of certain organs of the body revealed the presence of a small quantity of hydrocyanic acid, or cyanide, in the brain, which tended to show poisoning with potassium cyanide. There was evidence that Watkins used potassium cyanide about his farm and restaurant for the purpose of killing rats; that he was familiar with its poisonous qualities; that death might result from taking small amounts of the substance internally, from inhaling gasses from it, or from quantities working its way under the finger nails and into the tissues and blood stream of the body. It was further shown that Watkins had been drinking to excess for some time prior to his death, and that he was having financial troubles. His death was shrouded in mystery, and no one could state with certainty the circumstances of his passing. The evidence is wholly circumstantial.

It has long been established in cases of this kind that an insurer seeking to escape liability on the ground of suicide has the burden of proving that the death of the insured was self-administered with suicidal intent. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 65 App.D.C. 129, 81 F.2d 263; Home Benefit Ass'n v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, 12 S.Ct. 332, 35 L.Ed. 1160. The evidence in the case at bar does not conclusively establish suicide, but permits conflicting inferences, and fair-minded men might reasonably differ as to the manner and cause of the insured's death. On this record it cannot be said that the evidence established facts which exclude every reasonable hypothesis of death except by suicide. The evidence made an issue for the jury, and the court properly refused to direct verdicts for the defendants. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Graves, 3 Cir., 25 F.2d 705; Tabor v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 13 F.2d 765; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 5 Cir., 174 F. 116; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 817.

It is shown that Errol S. Willes was a lawyer practicing at Fort Pierce, Florida, where Watkins lived; that he was also agent and manager for a small-loan company; that on the day preceding his death, Watkins went to the office of Willes and sought to borrow money and get a drink of whiskey; that Willes loaned Watkins $50.00 and took a drink with him, and they proceeded to discuss "some other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Provenzano v. Singletary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 3, 1997
    ...International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United Tel. Co. of Florida, 60 F.R.D. 177, 184-85 (M.D.Fla.1973); see also Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352, 354 (5th Cir.1942) ("The privilege, however, does not extend to every statement made to a lawyer. If the statement is about matte......
  • Marshall v. Hendricks
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 23, 2000
    ...that defendant's comments to attorney friend were not in professional capacity but as a friend); Modern Woodmen of Am. v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352, 354 (5th Cir.1942) ("If the statement is ... to the lawyer merely as a personal friend, the matter is not In the instant case, as described above,......
  • Marshall v. Hendricks, Civil Action No. 97-5618 (JEI) (D. N.J. 6/23/2000), Civil Action No. 97-5618 (JEI)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 23, 2000
    ...1986)(holding that defendant's comments to attorney friend were not in professional capacity but as a friend); Modern Woodmen of Am. v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 1942) ("If the statement is . . . to the lawyer merely as a personal friend, the matter is not In the instant case, as......
  • U.S. v. Buckley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 18, 1978
    ...is free to communicate with his attorney "without fear of consequences or the apprehension of disclosure." Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 1942). See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976); Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Dirty laundry.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 66 No. 1, January 1999
    • January 1, 1999
    ...both house counsel as well as outside counsel. Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1986). (11.) Modern Woodmen of America v. Witkins, 132 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1942); State v. Gionis, 892 P.2d 1199 (Cal. 1995). For a discussion of Gionis, see Daniel J. Pope & Helen Watley Pope, Can You......
  • The complete advisor - one attorney's case for ancillary practices.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 78 No. 2, February 2004
    • February 1, 2004
    ...economic, social, and political factors that may be relevant to the client's situation." (7) See Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F. 2d 352 (1942) (finding if statement needs to be connected with the business at hand, and not a general conversation, or spoken to an attorney merely ......

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