Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-03-08
A poor POLICY.

People n hold insurance policies
unon their lives, and who have an I'M
comfortable idea that the realization Of
the benefits for which they have con-
tracted is not so inevitable as the return
Of the days upon which they must make
their stipulated payments, viii not be re-
assured by a decision upon the subject
lately rendered by the Supreme Court of
New York. A physician in that State
insured himself with a company which it
is not necessary to name, against death
in consequence Of "bodily injuries eff
fected through external, violent and
accidental means, within the intent and
meaning Of this contract" the money to
be payable to his wife upon proof Of
death having occurred by any such cause
as that described. The policy was duly
kept alive, and while it continued in full
force the physician made an unfortunate
mistake which cost him his life. He
drank poison in mistake for water. When
his widow presented the policy for pay
ment the company rejected the claim,
and upon the case being carried into
court defended itself upon two grounds.
1t urged in the first place that death had
not been caused by a violent and exter-
nal injury, and for a further plea it
advanced that poison had been provided
against in the bond.
No attempt was made to challenge the
sanity of the deceased, or make out that
his death had been a case of suicide. 1t
was admitted that the poison had been
taken by mistake, and the company
rested its case upon the aforementioned
defense. 1t proved sufficient. The court
held that the points relied upon were
well taken, and that payment of the
policy could not be enforced. This may
be good law, although the fact that it
was pronounced by a divided court leaves
room for doubt even as to that but it is
difficult to appreciate its justice. The
distinction which the company success
fully maintained between a death by
poisoning and a death by external, vio-
lent and accidental means lis artificial
and not consonant with common sense.
There is hardly room for doubt as to the
effect which the restrictive words We're
at the time the contract was made under
stood and intended to produce. They
were meant to so define the liability of
the company as to relieve it from respon-
sibility in the event of the insured com
ing to his death, either directly or in
directly, by disease or old age. 1t is
true, the policy contained a proviso
against liability for death "caused by the
taking of poison" but the dissenting
Judge held that this was directed against
suicide, and was SO construed by the
parties. This is a reasonable assumption.
Had the meaning been otherwise it
would, we may be morally sure. have
been SO expressed. The deceased GER
tainly thought he was insuring against
fatal accidents of any kind, and as there
was nothing in the contract incompatible
with that idea, the payment of the
policy was evaded on a technicality.
Insurance companies are of course COM
PEELED in self-protection to subject the
claims submitted to them to rigorous
scrutiny. If they were to pay every
thing that came along without stopping
to verify their liability, cheats and i'm
posters of every kind would very soon
drive them into insolvency. But upon
business grounds it is not worth their
while to insist upon the letter of their
bond, and to take shelter behind verbal
bubbles and legal technicalities in order
to evade a claim which should in right
and equity be honored. Beyond any
question it would pay them better to
pocket a loss that might be avoided than
to give the public an idea that they are
tricky and not to be trusted, and that
they will if they can get the best of their
customers. The company to which we
have referred gained two thousand dol
lars by its litigation. But does any n
suppose that its victory, by unfavorably
affecting it in the judgment of the public,
will not cost more than that?