Slaughter v. State Capital Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 532,532 |
| Citation | 250 N.C. 265,108 S.E.2d 438 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ruth E. SLAUGHTER v. STATE CAPITAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Joseph H. Levinson, Smithfield, William I. Godwin, Selma, for plaintiff, appellant.
Allen & Hipp, Raleigh, Wellons & Wellons, Smithfield, for defendant, appellee.
The plaintiff has abandoned all assignments of error except those relating to the judgment of nonsuit. The policy here involved provided coverage for death 'resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injury sustained by the insured solely through external, violent, and accidental means. ' In order to prevail in her suit on the policy, the plaintiff must bring the insured's death within the coverage provision. If coverage is established, the defendant may relieve itself of liability by showing the insured's death was caused 'directly or indirectly, wholly or partly, by the intentional act of the insured or any other person, whether sane or insane. ' Goldberg v. United Life and Accident Ins. Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521; Fallins v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 247 N.C. 72, 100 S.E.2d 214; Patrick v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 614, 86 S.E.2d 201; Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 214 N.C. 526, 200 S.E. 5; Whitaker v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 213 N.C. 376, 196 S.E. 328; Warren v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 212 N.C. 354, 193 S.E. 293; Id., 215 N.C. 402, 2 S.E.2d 17; Id., 217 N.C. 705, 9 S.E.2d 479; Id., 219 N.C. 368, 13 S.E.2d 609.
Unless the plaintiff's evidence in this case permits the legitimate inference that the insured met his death solely through external, violent, and accidental means, nonsuit is proper. It is not enough to show death by external means. It is not enough to show death by violent means. We think the proper rule requires the plaintiff to offer evidence sufficient to permit the inference that death was caused also by accidental means. The plaintiff has recognized her responsibility in this particular by the following in her brief: 'Thus, there is no question that the plaintiff in an action on an accidental policy must prove that the death for which the action was brought was caused by accidental means within the terms of the policy.'
The evidence in this case may be deemed conclusive that the death of the insured resulted solely from external and violent means. The body was found in a lonely place at the city dump, within about three hours from the time he left Selma to carry a passenger to Smithfield. The insured had been shot in the back and above the left ear with a pistol. His money, his pistol, and his taxicab were gone. His belt and empty purse were found near the body. His taxicab was found in a parking lot 22 miles away. The tire marks near the body showed a vehicle had spun its wheels as it left the scene. All the evidence points to an intentional killing with robbery as the motive. This evidence, viewed in the light of reason and common sense, leaves no basis for a finding of death as the result of accident as the term 'accident' is generally understood. The evidence, circumstantial, of course, offered nothing which even remotely tended to suggest, much less to support a finding, that death resulted through accidental means.
The plaintiff cites a number of cases, some our own, to the effect that when a prima facie case of coverage under a policy is made out that death resulted solely from external, violent, and accidental means, then in considering whether the insurer has relieved itself of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bone v. Charlotte Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7118DC21
...judgment as of nonsuit because the death was by homicide within the meaning of the exception clause. In Slaughter v. State Capital Life Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 265, 108 S.E.2d 438 (1959), the provision for coverage was the same as in Fallins and Goldberg but excluded from coverage was the i......
-
Moore v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co.
...discharge of the pistol. 5 Plaintiff was therefore entitled to the benefit of the presumption. Defendant cites Slaughter v. Insurance Co., supra, 250 N.C. 265, 108 S.E.2d 438, in support of its contention that plaintiff is not entitled to the presumption. Slaughter was a suit on a policy in......
-
International Service Ins. Co. v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.
...265 N.C. 675, 144 S.E.2d 898; Kirk v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 651, 119 S.E.2d 645; Slaughter v. State Capital Life Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 265, 108 S.E.2d 438. It should be noted that, effective 1 July 1963, G.S. § 20--72(b) and G.S. § 20--75 were again materially changed ......
-
Mills v. State Life & Health Ins. Co.
...Co., 247 N.C. 72, 100 S.E.2d 214; Goldberg v. United Life & Acc. Insurance Co., 248 N.C. 86, 102 S.E.2d 521; Slaughter v. State Capital Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 265, 108 S.E.2d 438; Gray v. State Capital Insurance Co., In Warren, Whitaker, Fallins, Slaughter and Gray, a policy provision excl......