Schumacher v. National Travelers Benefit Association of Des Moines

Decision Date09 May 1925
Docket Number25,924
Citation235 P. 844,118 Kan. 523
PartiesCARRIE E. J. SCHUMACHER, Appellant, v. NATIONAL TRAVELERS BENEFIT ASSOCIATION OF DES MOINES, IOWA, Appellee
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1925.

Appeal from Ellsworth district court; DALLAS GROVER, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

INSURANCE -- Accident -- Provision Restricting Liability -- Nature and Effect. The following provision contained in an accident insurance policy is not invalid:

"This certificate shall not extend to nor cover nor is any indemnity promised for . . . bodily injuries resulting from the discharge of a firearm, unless the claimant shall establish the accidental cause of the discharge by the testimony of a person other than the injured or the claimant who actually saw the accidental cause in operation."

Ira E. Lloyd, and N. F. Nourse, both of Ellsworth, for the appellant.

Samuel E. Bartlett, of Ellsworth, for the appellee.

Marshall J. Mason, J. concurring specially. Johnston, C. J., Harvey and Hopkins, JJ., dissenting.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant on an accident insurance policy issued in her favor on the life of her husband, A. H. Schumacher, who died from a gunshot wound.

The policy contained the following provision:

"This certificate shall not extend to nor cover nor is any indemnity promised for injuries sustained while riding a motor cycle, nor injuries received at a time when the assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, nor injuries received from wars or riots, nor bodily injuries resulting from the discharge of a firearm, unless the claimant shall establish the accidental cause of the discharge by the testimony of a person, other than the injured or the claimant, who actually saw the accidental cause in operation."

No one saw the accident and no other person was present when Schumacher was shot, except a two-year-old child. The defendant pleaded the quoted provision of the policy and alleged that the plaintiff had not submitted adequate proofs of accidental death and was not entitled to recover. The cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and answered special questions, which were supported by evidence and which showed that the deceased had met his death by the accidental discharge of a shotgun.

The case turns on the validity of the above-quoted provision of the policy. Such provisions have been upheld. (Becker v. Interstate Business Men's Acc. Ass'n, 265 F. 508; Roeh v. Protective Ass'n, 164 Iowa 199, 145 N.W. 479; Moses v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n, 189 Ill.App. 440; Lundberg v. Interstate B. &. M. Acc. Asso., 162 Wis. 474, 156 N.W. 482.) On the other hand, such provisions have been held invalid on the ground that the evidence by which facts can be proved cannot be controlled by contract because such contracts are against public policy. ( Utter v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 545, 32 N.W. 812; Rollins v. Business Men's Acc. Assn. of Am., 204 Mo.App. 679, 220 S.W. 1022; Modern Woodmen of America v. Michelin, 101 Okla. 217, 225 P. 163.) It is not pretended that these are the only cases which have been before the courts in this country where the validity of provisions like the one in question in the present case has been considered. In a number of cases where the question has been presented the courts have not directly decided the question, but have decided the cases on matters incidental or collateral to the questioned provision. There is an irreconcilable conflict in the decisions.

This court in Hannon v. United Workmen, 99 Kan. 734, 163 P. 169, said:

"A by-law of a fraternal beneficiary association providing that 'mysterious disappearance or unexplained absence of a member shall never...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wertheimer v. TRAVELERS'PROTECTIVE ASS'N
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 28 Marzo 1933
    ...N. W. 479, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 221, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 813; Moses v. Ill. Comm. Men's Ass'n, 189 Ill. App. 440; Schumacher v. National Travelers' Ben. Ass'n, 118 Kan. 523, 235 P. 844; Southern Travelers' Ass'n v. Shattuck (Tex. Civ. App.) 2 S.W.(2d) 568; Lundberg v. Interstate Bus. Men's Ass'......
  • Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Martinez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 20 Mayo 1937
    ...51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 221, Ann. Cas.1915C, 813; Rollins v. Business Men's Ass'n, 204 Mo.App. 679, 220 S.W. 1022; Schumacher v. National Travelers' Ben. Ass'n, 118 Kan. 523, 235 P. 844; Southern Travelers' Ass'n v. Shattuck (Tex.Civ. App.) 2 S.W.(2d) 568 (writ of error refused); Supreme Ruling of ......
  • Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Braden
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 1942
    ... ... for recovery of the double indemnity benefit alleged to be ... due under a certificate of ... N.S., 221, Ann.Cas.1915C, 813; Schumacher v. National ... Travelers' Ben. Ass'n, 1925, 118 ... ...
  • Dubler v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order United Workmen of Kansas
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1938
    ... ... benefit of persons or members immediately upon the ... In the case of Schumacher ... v. National Travelers' Benefit Association, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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