Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. Stanfield

• Decision Date: 28 November 1945
• Docket Number: No. 3171.,3171.
• Citation: 151 F.2d 776
• Parties: PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO., WORCESTER, MASS., v. STANFIELD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

151 F.2d 776 (1945)

PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO., WORCESTER, MASS., v. STANFIELD.

No. 3171.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

October 30, 1945.

Rehearing Denied November 28, 1945.

Roy C. Lytle, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (D. I. Johnston and Keaton, Wells & Johnston, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.

Louis A. Fischl, of Ardmore, Okl. (Thos. W Champion, of Ardmore, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

This was an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to recover under the double indemnity provision of a life insurance policy. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendant company has appealed.

There is no dispute in the evidence, and the only question is whether the accident which caused death was within the coverage of the policy. The insured, a resident of Oklahoma, died as the result of sunstroke. Under the settled law of Oklahoma, sunstroke is an accident effected solely through external, violent and accidental means.¹ Under the decision of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, this decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court is binding upon us.

Whether the accident which caused the death of the insured was within the coverage of the policy must be determined from a rider attached to the policy, the material portion of which reads as follows:

"If the death of the insured occurs while the attached policy is outstanding and in force under its original conditions and prior to the insured's sixty-fifth birthday, and results directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries effected solely through external, violent and accidental means, within ninety days of the occurrence of the accident, and if such accident (except in the case of accidental drowning or of internal injuries revealed by an autopsy) is evidenced by a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body, the sum insured provided on the first page of the attached policy will be doubled."

This rider, as far as material to the issues presented herein, limits the coverage to death resulting from such accidents as are evidenced by a visible wound or contusion on the exterior of the body. Whether there was such a wound or contusion in this case must be determined from the following agreed facts:

The deceased became pale and remarked that he felt a "hot spell or something" coming over him; he immediately went to bed; his clothes were wet with perspiration; he complained of smothering to death and of pains in his arms; his face was a pale yellow color and his lips were blue and swollen; the pupils of his eyes were dilated, and his eyes were glassy; he vomited blood practically the entire time, and hot fluid flowed from his nose; and just before death occurred his "skin had turned blue practically all over his body."

Do any of these symptoms constitute a visible wound or contusion upon the exterior of the body? We think they do not. Many of the cases upon which appellee relies to sustain the judgment are not helpful because the proviso considered therein was quite different from the one in question here. They arose under provisions which required a visible mark or evidence of injury, or language meaning substantially that. Under such a proviso we would have no difficulty in concluding that there were visible marks and evidence of an injury. But this proviso requires a wound or contusion on the exterior of the body.

A number of courts have considered similar provisos where the facts were substantially the same, and as in many such cases, have reached different conclusions. In Wiecking v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 90; Huss v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C., 37 F.Supp. 364; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Fox, Tex.Civ. App., 184 S.W.2d 937, and Warbende v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 7 Cir., 97 F.2d 749, 117 A.L.R. 760, the courts held that substantially the same facts met the requirements of similar provisos in the policies, while in Paist v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C., 54 F.2d 393, affirmed 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 476; Pope v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 103 F.2d 265; Dupee v. Travelers Ins. Co. 278 N.Y. 659, 16 N.E.2d 391, and Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ansley 22 Tenn. App. 456, 124 S.W.2d 37, the courts...