Case Name: MARY E. HILL, Appellant, v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1880-09
Citations: 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY E. HILL, Appellant, v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: Learned, P. J., concurs.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 29
Pages: 187–194

Head Matter:
MARY E. HILL, Appellant, v. THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
.Accident insurance policy — when death is not occasioned by external and violent means — construction of a proviso excepting from insurance deaths caused by poison.
The defendant issued a policy of insurance upon the life of one John A. Hill, in the sum of $2,000, to be paid to the plaintiff, his wife, upon proof that the insured “ shall have sustained bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means within the intent and meaning of this contract, and the conditions hereto annexed, aucl such injuries alone shall have occasioned death. . . . Provided always, that this insurance shall not extend ... to any death or disability which may have been caused wholly or in part .... by the taking of poison . . or by suicide, felonious or otherwise, sane or insane.” In the course of his business, Hill, who was a physician and surgeon, mixed some poison with water in a goblet, and thereafter, mistaking the mixture for pure water, and without any intention of taking his life, drauk it, and subsequently died from its effects.
In an action brought by the plaintiff upon the policy,
Held, that the death was not “effected through external, violent and accidental means,” as those terms were used in the policy.
That the proviso, excepting from the insurance a death caused ‘ ‘ by the taking of poison,” was not limited to cases of intentional self-poisioning, but included all cases in which the death was so caused. (Follett, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered upon tbe trial of tbis action by tbe court without a jury.
Tbe action was brought upon a policy of insurance 'issued by tbe defendant on December 17, 1874, upon tbe life of one John O. Hill, in tbe sum of $2,000, payable in cáse of loss to tbe plaintiff, bis wife. Tbe policy provided that tbe said sum should be paid “within ninety days after sufficient proof that tbe insured at any time within tbe continuance of tbis policy shall have sustained bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means within tbe intent and meaning of tbis contract, and tbe condition hereto annexed, and such injuries alone shall have occasioned death within ninety days from tbe happening thereof. . . . Provided always that tbis insurance shall not extend to any bodily injury of which there shall be no external and visible sign; nor to any bodily injury happening directly or indirectly in conse quence of disease, nor to any death or disability which may have been caused wholly or in part 'by bodily infirmities or disease existing prior or subsequent to the date of this contract, or by the talcing of poison / .... and no claim shall be made under this policy, where the death or injury may have been caused by duelling, fighting, wrestling, lifting, or by over-exertion (or by suicjde, felonious or otherwise, sane or insane), or by sunstroke,, freezing, or self-inflicted injuries.”
The judge before whom the action was tried, found “ that the said John 0. Hill, within the continuance of the Policy, accidentally took poison, by drinking the same in water from a glass in his own hand which caused cramps, spasms, rigidity of the muscles, locking of the chest, and blackening of the face before death, and was the sole cause of death, and he died by reason of taking of said poison within a few hours after the taking of the same. That when he took it he was well, and did not knowingly or intentionally take the poison. That he did not know he was taking poison when he took it, that he did not intend to commit suicide when he took it, that he took it accidentally and without any knowledge or intention of taking the same. That there were no external or visible signs of injury except the blackening in the face and the apparent rigidity of the muscles, cramps and locking of the chest. And that the said Hill sustained no bodily injuries effected through external, violent and accidental means. That the plaintiff is the payee named in the policy. That proofs of the death were duly served on the company on February 14, 1875.”
Charles Q. Day, for the appellant.
Orlow W. Chapman, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Bookes, J.:
We are of the opinion that this case was properly decided by the learned judge before whom it was tried.
The policy provided for indemnity against 'two classes of accidents; one which should occasion the death of the insured within ninety days from the happening thereof; the other against injuries which should prevent him from the prosecution of his ordinary business. The claim in this case is made by reason of an accident which occasioned death.
It was provided in the policy of insurance, that payment in such case could be required only on sufficient proof, that the insured " sustained bodily injuries effected through external Violent and accidental means;" and that .such iinjuries--alone "occasioned death," and it was also declared that the insurance should not expend to cmy death caused by the " taking of poison."
The insured died suddenly from taking poison. He took it by-mistake. He took it without knowing that he was taking poison, and without any intention to take poison or to do himself an in • jury, and the taking of the poison, or its action was the sole cause of death. His death, as we think, must be deemed to have occurred through accident or through accidental means.
Then was the injury which " occasioned death " effected through external and violent means ? Yf e think not. The injury was effected (caused) through the action of the poison internally. Death was not caused by any external act; nor by anything acting externally, and certainly not by any violent external means. This view of the case is supported too by the decision in Bayliss v. Travellers' Ins. Co. of Hartford (MS. opinion of Benedict, J.).
But the case is made unanswerably in favor of the defendant, as we think, inasmuch as the insurance did not extend to and cover a case of death " caused by the taking of poison." Here the death of the insured was undeniably so caused. This was the sole cause of his death, and death so caused was excepted from the policy in express terms. That the poison was taken unintentionally can make no difference in giving construction to the exception. This fact made the cause of death in this case accidental; hence the necessity of the exception in case the insurance was to extend to and cover this pai-ticular accidental cause. Nor is the exception limited to cases of intentional self-poisoning. That it was not intended to 'be so limited is manifest from the fact that there is another provision in the policy, which declares that no claim could be made under it, where the death or injury shall have been caused by suicide, felonious or otherwise, sane or insane.
We are of the opinion that the judgment for the defendant must be affirmed.
Learned, P. J., concurs.