Welch v. Professional Ins. Corp., 52907
| Decision Date | 22 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52907,No. 3,52907,3 |
| Citation | 140 Ga.App. 336,231 S.E.2d 103 |
| Parties | Jewel M. WELCH v. PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Carlisle, Chason & McRae, Edwin A. Carlisle, Terry S. McRae, Cairo, for appellant.
Porter & Lehman, J. Richard Porter, III, Cairo, for appellee.
The insured and his wife were accidentally killed by breathing carbon monoxide fumes, described in the death certificate as acute carbon monoxide intoxication, while they were in a closed Volkswagen camper with the motor running. The policy provision on which the defendant relied in refusing to pay the death benefit reads: 'This policy does not cover any loss incurred as a result of: . . . (i) taking of poison or asphyxiation from or voluntary inhaling of gas, or fumes. . . .'
The exclusion obviously covers only the voluntary inhalation of a noxious gas. Does the word 'asphyxiation' enlarge the meaning so as additionally to exclude the involuntary or accidental inhalation of a gas by means of which the insured is suffocated? Precisely, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the condition is asphyxia carbonica, defined as 'a suffocation from inhalation of . . . carbon monoxide.' The language of this policy is most unusual, and we do not find any jurisdiction where it has been adjudicated. The usual exclusion, exemplified by Transport Life Insurance Co. v. Karr, Tex.Civ.App., 491 S.W.2d 446, reads: 'No accidental Death . . . Benefits will be paid for any loss which results . . . from . . . taking of poison or asphyxiation from or inhaling of gas, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.' In such a case the words 'voluntarily or involuntarily' refer to the poison, the asphyxiation, and the gas, and there is no question but that an exclusion results regardless of the intention of the insured. But here we have no such language. The exclusion, in the case of inhalation of gas, is limited to voluntary inhalation only, which means that the involuntary inhalation of carbon monoxide, a gas, which produces death, is not an excluded risk. The death, however, is by asphyxiation. If the involuntary inhalation of the gas results in death by asphyxiation, do we reach a different conclusion? But death by inhaling carbon monoxide is by definition death by asphyxiation.
A review of cases dealing with exclusionary clauses of similar import reveals that the general trend of cases is to interpret the language as not excluding the risk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
...v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla.App.1978), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 461 (Fla.1979); Welch v. Professional Ins. Corp., 140 Ga.App. 336, 231 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1976). There is no doubt that resort to this principle of liberal construction is appropriate in view of the unde......
-
USA Life One Ins. Co. of Indiana v. Nuckolls
...from the taking of poison or asphyxiation from or inhaling of gas, whether voluntary or involuntary." See Welch v. Professional Ins. Corp., 140 Ga.App. 336, 231 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1976). Courts have interpreted the more usual version of this particular exclusion with respect to death from the......
-
Greer v. IDS Life Ins. Co.
...to the insured. (Cit.)" Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. South, 179 Ga. 653, 656, 177 S.E. 499, 501. See also Welch v. Professional Ins. Corp., 140 Ga.App. 336, 231 S.E.2d 103. C. We decline to construe this policy strictly so as to afford accidental death benefit coverage only when the death ......
-
Richards v. Hanover Ins. Co.
...that one of the co-insureds breached that provision by intentionally setting fire to the dwelling. See Welch v. Professional Ins. Corp., 140 Ga.App. 336, 231 S.E.2d 103 (1976). Once this is shown, however, the burden shifts to Mrs. Richards (as the co-insured claiming coverage under the pol......