The Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Hollowell

• Decision Date: 24 March 1896
• Docket Number: 1,740
• Citation: 43 N.E. 277,14 Ind.App. 611
• Parties: THE UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOLLOWELL, ADMINISTRATOR
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

43 N.E. 277

14 Ind.App. 611

THE UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOLLOWELL, ADMINISTRATOR

No. 1,740

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 24, 1896

From the Putnam Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial.

Ramsey Maxwell & Ramsey, F. D. Ader and Holstein & Barrett for appellant.

Brill & Harvey, Lewis & Corwin, and Cofer & Hadley, for appellee.

OPINION

DAVIS, J.

This was an action commenced by appellee against the appellant in the Hendricks Circuit Court on a policy of insurance issued by appellant bearing date December 6, 1893, upon the life of John C. Koehler. It is averred that the assured died intestate on February 28, 1894, and that appellant was notified of his death and denied liability on the policy. The venue of the cause was changed to the circuit court of Putnam county, where a trial was had before a jury and a verdict returned in favor of appellee, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

One of the conditions of the policy is as follows: "Self-destruction by the insured, whether sane or insane, within three years from the date hereof will avoid this policy." The substance of the second paragraph of the answer was that said John C. Koehler came to his death by his own hand by poison which he administered to himself with the intent and purpose of causing death, and from which poison he died, and therefore said policy was and is void. The court instructed the jury that if Koehler died from arsenic poison, such fact would not be sufficient to defeat the policy "unless you also find from all the evidence in this case by a fair preponderance that said poison was deliberately and willfully taken by said Koehler with the intent to commit suicide."

It is not incumbent on the appellant to prove that the act of self-destruction was with careful consideration. If the poison was hastily taken by him with the intent to commit suicide, the condition of the policy was broken. The provision in the policy is that self-destruction whether sane or insane, will void the policy. All that appellant was required to prove on this question was that said poison was taken by said Koehler with intent to commit suicide. If it was taken hastily or deliberately with such intent, whether sane or insane, there could be no recovery on the policy. The conscious and voluntary act on the part of the assured in taking the poison with intent to take his own life, which resulted in death, was sufficient to defeat the claim of insurance, whether such act was committed deliberately or not.

Counsel for the appellee insist that the error in this instruction was cured by other instructions given by the court, in which the court said that if the jury should find that the deceased came to his death by poison taken with intent to commit suicide, then they must find for the defendant.

The erroneous instruction was not cured by the subsequent giving of the correct instructions. McCrory v. Anderson, 103 Ind. 12, 16, 2 N.E. 211.

The instructions were contradictory and calculated to confuse and mislead the jury. Summerlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87, 22 N.E. 973.

The instructions must have left the jury in doubt and uncertainty as to what the law applicable to the case was. State, ex rel., v. Sutton, 99 Ind. 300, 307. On account of the error in giving this instruction the judgment of the trial court will have to be reversed.

In view of the fact that the complaint shows that the appellant on notice of the death of the assured denied liability on the policy, no demand was necessary before suit was brought. The complaint as to this question is therefore sufficient.

There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to order the body of deceased to be exhumed, so that an analysis of the contents of the stomach and liver could be had. He died on the 27th of February, and was buried on the 1st of March, 1894. The company was notified of his death on the day he died, and wrote said Hollowell on the day the deceased was buried, the same being the day upon which he was appointed administrator, that there was no liability on the policy, because of the suicide of the assured. The complaint was filed on the 17th day of August, 1894, and on the 14th of December, 1894, and only two days before the beginning of the trial, the application above mentioned was made. No effort was made for an autopsy while the body was in the hands of the coroner and no reason is shown for the delay in making the application. No reason has been assigned that would justify the reversal of the judgment of the trial court on account of this ruling.

There was no error in refusing to allow appellant on the trial to read in evidence a certified copy of the inquest of the coroner. The taking of testimony before the coroner was ex parte and his finding was not admissible as affirmative evidence in support of appellant's defense. No reason for the admission of the finding of the coroner and the testimony on...