Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n of Omaha v. Reid
Decision Date | 10 February 1966 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 957 |
Citation | 279 Ala. 136,182 So.2d 869 |
Parties | MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH AND ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION OF OMAHA v. Edith L. REID. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Kirkman Jackson, Birmingham, for appellant.
Murray A. Battles, Atlanta, Ga., and Fred C. Folsom, Cullman, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff for $5,000 of the Circuit Court of Cullman County, Alabama, based on a health and accident insurance policy issued by the appellant (defendant below), insuring the life of one Cannie T. Reid against accidental death. The death benefit was contained in a Rider attached to the health and accident policy.
The original complaint consisted of five counts, which was later amended by the addition of Counts 6, 7 and 8. Count 8 set out the policy sued on in haec verba. To the complaint as initially filed, and as amended, appellant filed a demurrer. The demurrer to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was sustained, and overruled as to Counts 7 and 8. To Counts 7 and 8, the defendant filed first, a plea of the general issue; second, that the insured of the policy sued on came to his death by suicide; and third, Standard ard Provision 15 of the policy, which, in words and figures, is as follows:
In connection with the third plea, the defendant tendered and paid into court the sum of $10.00, which it was stipulated was the amount required to be refunded under the provisions of the policy in the event it was decided that Standard Provision 15 applied.
The appellee (plaintiff below) took issue on those three pleas.
It was stipulated at the outset of the trial between counsel for plaintiff and defendant that the policy sued on was in force and effect at the time of the insured's death, and that the appellant had received appropriate notice and proof of his death, resulting from gunshot wounds sustained on May 4, 1961, and the plaintiff was the wife of the deceased and the beneficiary named in the policy, and that the policy was her property.
The case was tried by the court without a jury and the evidence was taken ore tenus before him. The circuit court entered a judgment for the plaintiff for $5,000 and the costs of court, and the defendant duly and seasonably perfected its appeal from that judgment.
The appellant assigns 10 alleged errors.
Appellant states in brief:
'Third, and very briefly, the further question is raised touching the correctness vel non of the exclusion from the evidence of the first page of the Coroner's Inquest.
'The application of the assignments of error to these three phases of the argument of the appellant being manifest, they will briefly if at all be alluded to in the written argument.'
The policy sued on became effective June 6, 1959. Undeniably, Cannie T. Reid was killed by the blast of an automatic shotgun on the morning of May 4, 1961.
The pleadings in the case are adequate to raise the three questions presented by appellant for decision of this Court, and we will discuss them as raised.
In Alabama, it is well established that where the evidence is taken ore tenus before the trial judge, this Court will not disturb the trial court's conclusion on issues of fact, which is likened unto the verdict of a jury unless plainly and palpably wrong.
The first question is: Did Reid commit suicide, or was his death accidental?
The trial court found the following facts:
'There was testimony by several of the witnesses that he had made a statement the day before he had to clean his shotgun and he was going to carry it to the service station he owned which was only about 50 yards from where he lived.
There was also evidence tending to prove that Reid had had the safety on this particular gun changed from a right-hand position to a left-hand position; that the gun had a 'soft trigger,' or fired easily; that at times there was a malfunction in the ejectment system of the weapon, and that as a result of same, the weapon had been accidently fired at times when it was thought to be empty of shells.
There are presumptions favoring love of life, avoidance of harm or danger, and with some limitations, exercise of ordinary care. While the presumption against suicide is a strong one, and while such presumption, the courts have declared, stands until overcome by testimony, it is prima facie only, rebuttable, and not a rigid rule of law. The presumption operates to its fullest extent only where there is no proof as to whether the death was accidental or suicidal. 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 135.
In the case of New York Life Insurance Co. v. Beason, 229 Ala. 140, 155 So. 530, the evidence relied upon to show self-destruction, as well as that tending to disprove suicide, was wholly circumstantial and afforded conflicting inferences, this Court said:
It was said in Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cobbs, 23 Ala.App. 205, 123 So. 94:
. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Pate
...v. Maddox, 221 Ala. 292, 128 So. 383; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Turner, 213 Ala. 286, 104 So. 643.' Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n of Omaha v. Reid, 279 Ala. 136, 141, 182 So.2d 869, 873; Fleetwood v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra, 246 Ala. at p. 574, 21 So.2d We have observed how......
-
The Med. Protective Co. v. Crafton Chiropractic, Inc., Civil Action 20-00414-KD-B
... ... additional services through a Health Patient Program ... ( Id. , p. 149) ... insured's interpretation.”); Mut. Ben. Health ... & Acc. Ass'n of Omaha v. Reid, ... ...
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clay
...378 So.2d 693 (Ala.1979); Alabama Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. McCurry, 336 So.2d 1109 (Ala.1976); and Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n of Omaha v. Reid, 279 Ala. 136, 182 So.2d 869 (1966). Counsel for Clay cited to the court the cases of Rambin v. Continental Casualty Co., 186 So.2d 861 (......
-
Continental Cas. Co. v. Mulligan
...Newton v. Southwestern Mutual Life Association, 116 Iowa 311, 90 N.W. 73 (1902); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association of Omaha v. Reid, 279 Ala. 136, 182 So.2d 869 (1966); Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National Insurance Co., 141 Or. 98, 16 P.2d 639 (1932); Gilham v. National Life ......