Peterson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 110.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1940
• Docket Number: No. 110.,110.
• Parties: PETERSON v. AETNA LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

292 Mich. 531

290 N.W. 896

PETERSON

v.AETNA LIFE INS. CO.

No. 110.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 15, 1940.

Action by Elizabeth S. Peterson, assignee of Marian Gleason, formerly Marian Peterson, the former wife of Floyd Peterson, deceased, against the Aetna Life Insurance Company on double indemnity provision of group policy issued to deceased's employer. From a judgment of no cause of action, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County, in Chancery; Cornelius Hoffius, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

John M. Dunham, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Travis, Merrick & Johnson, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

BUSHNELL, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff is the assignee of the former wife of Floyd Peterson, deceased. Defendant Insurance Company issued a group policy to Peterson's employer. The policy provided that those employees of the group to which Peterson belonged would be insured ‘for the principal sum of $1,000 in the event of death sustained solely through external, violent and accidental means, independently of all other causes.’ Defendant paid the life policy but refused to pay upon the accident policy on the ground that Peterson's death was not occasioned solely through accidental means. The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered a judgment of no cause of action, from which plaintiff appeals.

For some time preceding his death, Peterson had been calling on Mrs. Gee, a widow at Whitehall, Michigan, to whom he had proposed marriage. On the Thursday before Peterson's death, he went to Whitehall to spend the week-end. On Sunday, Mrs. Gee and Peterson went to a neighbor's home for dinner, stayed all afternoon, and returned home about 11 o'clock in the evening. Peterson had been drinking all during the afternoon and, on his way back to the Gee home, he stopped at a tavern and had four bottles of beer. While Mrs. Gee and Peterson were at the tavern, her adopted son, Foster, came in and said that his grandmother was ill. Mrs. Gee told Foster that she would be home soon and, after he left, Peterson accused the son of spying on them and became very disagreeable. When they arrived home, Peterson became more abusive, got a revolver, and threatened to kill Mrs. Gee and her family. According to Mrs. Gee, he was yelling and screaming so that he could be heard on the street. He ordered Mrs. Gee into the sunroom, made her sit in a chair facing him, and kept her covered with the revolver, continuing his abuse, and invited the grandmother and Foster to stick their heads around the door and he would shoot them off, saying, ‘I am just waiting for the chance.’ When Mrs. Gee remonstrated with him, saying, ‘You wouldn't shoot either mother or Foster,’ he said, ‘Oh, I wouldn't, wouldn't I? I'll clean up the whole family. I kill you first and you won't be here to protect them and run after them.’ Mrs. Gee said he raised his gun and took aim at her, and then she heard a shot, after which Peterson's gun dropped to the floor and she saw blood on the side of his head. She ran into the living room, laid the gun on the desk, and met her son Foster, and asked, ‘Oh, Foster, did you do that or who did that?’ He replied, ‘Mother, I had to do it or you wouldn't be here now.’

The trial judge stated in a written opinion that Foster shot Peterson in defense of his mother and to save her life, saying:

‘Peterson could have anticipated that he might be halted or stopped in his murderous attack by any person not necessarily Foster Gee only, since the law gives protection from felonious assault, even to the extent of taking the life of an aggressor, to save the life of an innocent victim who is in imminent danger of death. A person is presumed in law to intend the consequences of his overt act knowingly done by him. No man can look into the mind of another. But, where an act is knowingly committed which leads to certain legal consequences, the court or jury trying the facts has the right to draw inferences that certain results were intended. The law presumes every person to intend the usual consequences of his act. Peterson intended to kill, but was himself killed while in the commission of a murderous assault. This was...