ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

common illustration is the loss caused by water in extinguishing the fire. The immediate cause of the loss is of course the action of the firemen in turning the water on the premises. Since, however, their action is traceable as a matter of common sense to the fire, the loss occasioned thereby is a natural, although not an immediate, result of the fire, and is held to be within the terms of the policy (20). Similarly, the damage to goods caused by removing them, to get them out of the way of a threatened fire, is within the policy, and it is enough if it was a reasonable thing to do to remove them, even though it can be shown that in fact they would not have burned if left where they were (21). The same rule holds where goods are stolen by thieves during the process of removal to a place of safety (22). Another kind of indirect loss that the company has been held liable for is illustrated by the following case: The insured had a wooden warehouse within that part of the city where wooden warehouses could no longer be erected. It was burned. The insurance company offered to show that the structure merely as such was not worth over $900. But to put up a warehouse on the site of the one burned would, because of the municipal regulations forbidding wooden ones, cost about $5,000. The court held that the latter amount was the measure of the loss that the insured had suffered, and that the company was obliged to pay the larger amount so far as it was

(20) Davis v. Insurance Co., 115 Mich. 382.

(21) White v. Insurance Co., 57 Me. 91.

(22) Tilton v. Insurance Co., 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 367. This kind of loss is excepted by the New York standard policy. App. E, 1. 78.

The

covered by the policy (23). A further illustration of indirect loss within the policy is the case where buildings are torn down or blown up to stop the further spread of a large conflagration. The destruction of the buildings thus torn down has also been held to be a fire loss within the meaning of the policy (24). This kind of loss is excepted by the New York Standard policy, which releases the company from liability for loss "caused directly or indirectly by invasion, insurrection, riot,

military or usurped power, or by order of any civil authority" (25).

SECTION 3. LIFE INSURANCE.

§ 119. Language of policy. The language of the life insurance policy varies somewhat from that of the marine and fire policies. There is no standard form of life policy, but the general provision is in substance that the insurance company will pay the amount specified to the person named in the policy, upon satisfactory proof of the death of the person whose life is insured. Hence, making a rough analogy to marine and fire insurance, we may say that it is the death of the insured that is covered by the policy. As in the case of marine and fire policies, this language has been the subject of considerable interpretation by the courts.

§ 120. What deaths are not covered by the policy: Execution, suicide, death in crime. Not all deaths are cov

(23)

Brady v. Insurance Co., 11 Mich. 425. This kind of loss is excepted by the New York standard policy. App. E, 1. 95. (24) Insurance Co. v. Corlies, 21 Wend.

(N. Y.) 367.

(25) App. E, 1. 75.

ered by a life insurance policy. It is clearly established that when the insured has been executed as a felon, it is contrary to public policy to allow a recovery (26). The same principle has been held in a number of jurisdictions to prevail where the insured deliberately commits suicide (27). The reason is very much the same. As the court said in the case last cited, it would be clearly contrary to public policy, if A said to B, "If you will commit suicide I will pay your estate $1,000," to let B's estate recover on such a contract. And the principle, although not so obvious, is the same when a recovery is allowed on an insurance contract under similar circumstances. The reason is not that the parties may not have intended to cover that kind of a loss, but that the public policy of the community, regardless of their intent, refuses to sanction any such contract or to recognize any rights as created thereby. The public policy of refusing collection where the insured takes out the policy with the very purpose of committing suicide is clear, and it would seem that it should make no difference whether the policy is payable to his "executors, administrators, or assigns" or to some third person as beneficiary. The reasoning of the Ritter case is broad enough to cover both kinds of cases.

§ 121. Same (continued). Where the policy is taken out in good faith but the insured later on commits suicide, the courts in general allow a recovery where the policy is payable to some third person as beneficiary. This has been rested upon the ground that the beneficiary has a

(26) Burt v. Insurance Co., 187 U. S. 362.
(27) Ritter v. Insurance Co., 169 U. S. 139.

vested interest, independent of the relation between the insured and the insurance company, and that the beneficiary therefore recovers in his own right and not merely as the representative of the deceased (28). For converse reasons, the courts have refused a recovery on the same facts where the policy was made payable to the estate of the deceased. In many policies at the present time there is a clause which provides that there shall be no recovery if the insured shall be executed for a crime or commits suicide. This clause of course settles the matter, and under such circumstances there can be no recovery either by the representative of the deceased or by the beneficiary. Another similar clause is frequently found, which provides that there shall be no recovery where the death took place while the insured was engaged in a violation of the law. Under such circumstances, a recovery was refused where the insured had been justifiably killed in self-defense by a person whom he had attacked (29).

§ 122. Suicide by insane persons. The principles which we have been considering above and the clause prohibiting recovery in the event of suicide apply only to suicide while the insured is sane. Courts have recognized three possible aspects of insane suicide, not covered by the preceding considerations. These classes are: First, the case where the insured commits suicide not knowing or understanding the physical consequences of what he is doing; second, where the insured commits suicide understanding that the taking of the poison or the discharging of the

(28) Seiler v. Insurance Co., 105 Iowa, 87.
(29) Murray v. Insurance Co., 96 N. Y. 614.

revolver will end his life, but being so diseased mentally that he has no control over his acts and is driven by an irresistible impulse to take his own life; third, where the insured understands that what he is doing will result in taking his own life and is not compelled thereto by an irresistible impulse, but he is at the same time so diseased and abnormal mentally that he does not really appreciate or understand the moral quality and character of the act that he is performing.

It is now well settled in all three of these cases that there can be a recovery upon the policy although it specifically excepts death by suicide (30).

§ 123. Clauses covering insane suicide. To prevent the results indicated in the last subsection, most insurance policies now bar a recovery in case of suicide "sane or insane." Some courts, even under these circumstances, have said that where the insured does not know what he is doing, or is driven to take his own life by an irresistible impulse, that is, where the suicide falls in either class one or class two above mentioned, it cannot be said to be the act of the insured in any real sense of the term, and consequently does not fall within the exception of the policy (31). The general rule, however, is that this clause in the policy will prevent a recovery where the insured takes his own life, regardless of the particular form of insanity from which he may be suffering (32).

§ 124. Negligent death. As might be expected from

(30) Insurance Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 580.

(31) Insurance Co. v. Daviess, 87 Ky. 541.
(32) Bigelow v. Insurance Co., 93 U. S. 284.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »