Powers v. Travelers' Ins. Co

• Decision Date: 31 October 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 284.)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Powers. v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

119 S.E. 481

(186 N. C. 335)

Powers.

v.TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

(No. 284.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 31, 1923.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pender County; Allen, Judge.

Action by P. P. Powers, administrator of A. K. Powers, deceased, against the Travelers' Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error.

The plaintiff's intestate, a resident of San-ford, Pla., purchased the policy in question on June 14, 1920. He came to his mother's home in Pender county the next day, and was killed on June 19. Wearing a white suit and a Panama hat, he left the house and walked out in the direction of the barn between 9 and 10 o'clock at night, and was shot by some one whom he did not recognize. He was carried into the house and said:

"I walked out there; I thought I heard a noise at the barn, and just before I got there some one came out, and before I could speak he threw up his hands and shot me. I don't know who it was unless it was somebody that took me for a haunt."

It is admitted that the sole cause of his death was the gunshot wound.

The following are the material parts of the policy:

"The Travelers' Insurance Company, Hartford, Conn., hereby insures the person whose name is written upon the stub of this ticket policy in the possession of the company, bearing even number and date herewith, against bodily injuries effected during the term of this insurance solely by external, violent, and accidental means in the manner following, subject to the conditions and limitations herein contained, to wit: (a) If such injuries shall, independently of all other causes, result in death within ninety days from the date of accident, the company will pay $2,500 in lieu of any other indemnity to the executors, administrators, or assigns of the insured."

"Additional provisions: (g) This insurance shall not cover disappearance nor injuries of which there is no visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body of the insured, nor shall it cover accident, injury, disability, or death resulting wholly or partly from any of the following, to wit: Aeronautics, * * * firearms, fireworks, or explosives of any kind, nor shall this insurance cover suicide, sane or insane, or injuries, fatal or nonfatal, inflicted intentionally by the insured or by any other person, sane or insane. * * * "

The plaintiff sued to recover $2,500 for the death of the insured, and it was admitted that, if entitled to recover, he is entitled to this amount.

The verdict was as follows:

(1) Did plaintiff's intestate come to his death from injury inflicted by the use of firearms? A. Yes.

(2) Did plaintiff's intestate receive a fatal injury intentionally inflicted by some person unknown, while sane or insane? A. No.

The first issue was answered by consent. The defendant moved for judgment upon the verdict. Denied. Exception. Judgment. Exception. Appeal by defendant.

Rountree & Carr, of Wilmington, for appellant.

Stevens, Beasley & Stevens, of Warsaw, for appellee.

ADAMS, J. [1] The defendant's motion for judgment upon the verdict should have been allowed. The first issue was answered by consent; and the contract insured the intestate against bodily injuries effected solely by external, violent, and accidental means as therein set out, subject to specific conditions and limitations. Among these limitations is this: That the insurance should not cover death resulting wholly or partly from several designated agencies, one of which is "firearms."

The insured and the defendant had the legal right to enter into the contract, and the parties are bound by its terms.

"In the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, insurance companies have the sameright as individuals to limit their liability and to impose whatever conditions they please upon their obligations, not inconsistent with public policy; and the courts have no right to add anything to their contract or to take anything from them." 14 R. C. L. 931; Roeh v. Protective Ass'n, 164 Iowa, 199, 145 N. W. 479, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 813; Lewis v. Accident Co., 194 Mass. 1, 79 N. E. 802, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 714; Penn v. Ins. Co., 158 N. C. 29, 73 S. E. 99, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 593; Id., 160 N. C. 400, 76 S. E. 262, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 597.

In the case last cited Walker, J., said:

"The plaintiff and defendant had the legal right to make any contract with each other, not unlawful in itself, both being at arm's length and in the full possession and enjoyment of their mental faculties. We must decide the case,...