Opinion ID: 2163641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accidental Death Policy Benefits

Text: USA Life argues that the undisputed facts preclude the Nuckolls from receiving any benefits under the accidental death benefits policy, and, therefore, USA Life is entitled to summary judgment. USA Life contends that, because it is undisputed that Robert Nuckolls died from carbon monoxide poisoning, his death clearly falls within the policy exclusion for the taking of poison or gas. USA Life further contends that, even if the death was caused by the alcohol and not the carbon monoxide, it is still entitled to summary judgment either because alcohol is also a poison or because Robert's intoxication was voluntary and, thus, his death was not accidental. Under Indiana law, a contract for insurance is subject to the same rules of interpretation as are other contracts. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 482 N.E.2d 467, 470 (Ind.1985). The interpretation is primarily a question of law for the court, even if the policy contains an ambiguity needing resolution. Tate v. Secura Ins., 587 N.E.2d 665, 668 (Ind.1992). If the language in the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, then it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. If, however, the language of the policy is ambiguous, then the court may apply the rules of construction in interpreting the language. Eli Lilly, 482 N.E.2d at 470. When an insurance contract contains an ambiguity, it should be strictly construed against the insurance company. This is especially true where the policy language in question concerns an exclusion clause. American States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945, 947 (Ind.1996). When an insurance company has failed to clearly exclude that which the insured attempted to protect against, a court must construe the ambiguous contract to further the policy's basic purpose of indemnity. Eli Lilly, 482 N.E.2d at 470. An ambiguity does not arise merely because the two parties proffer differing interpretations of the policy language. Lexington Ins. v. American Healthcare Providers, 621 N.E.2d 332, 336 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). Rather, the policy is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than one interpretation and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to its meaning. Commercial Union Ins. v. Moore, 663 N.E.2d 179, 181 (Ind.Ct. App.1996); see Masonic Accident Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 200 Ind. 472, 481, 164 N.E. 628 (1929). In the present case, the Court of Appeals held that the policy was unambiguous and that Robert Nuckolls' death was excluded by the policy. USA Life One Ins. Co. v. Nuckolls, 663 N.E.2d 541 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996). The court held that taking as used in the policy was a synonym of ingest, and that, no matter Robert's state (conscious or unconscious, voluntary or involuntary), he did ingest the poisonous gas. Id. at 544. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court and ordered the trial court to grant USA Life's motion for summary judgment. Id. As noted by the parties and the Court of Appeals, we can find only one Indiana case that is even somewhat similar to the present case. In Miller v. Fort Wayne Mercantile Accident Ass'n, 87 Ind.App. 561, 153 N.E. 427 (1926), the policy holder died after accidentally swallowing carbolic acid instead of medicine. Id. The holder had accidental death insurance; however, the policy excluded from its coverage death ... caused by, or resulting from ... injury (fatal or otherwise) resulting from any poison, or infection, or from anything accidentally or otherwise taken, administered, or inhaled. Id. at 562, 153 N.E. 427. The court held that the policy was not ambiguous so far as it excluded from coverage death resulting from poison. Id. at 569, 153 N.E. 427. The present case is, however, quite different from Miller. Both the policy language and the facts are different. The policy language used by USA Life appears to be somewhat unusual, and, in fact, we have not been able to find any cases discussing a policy exclusion for the taking of poison or gas, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, accidental or otherwise. The more usual version of this policy clause would exclude death 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 inhalation of gas. In general, these courts have held that death by inhalation of gas is excluded by the policy language. For example, courts have held that death resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning while sitting in a car, or in a garage with a running car, were excluded by the policy language. See Transport Life Ins. Co. v. Karr, 491 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973); King v. New York Life Ins. Co., 72 F.2d 620 (8th Cir.1934). Courts have also found that death due to the inhalation of escaping gas fumes from a gas heater while asleep in a room was excluded by the policy language. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. New York Life Ins. Co., 14 F.Supp. 721 (D.Md. 1936). These courts generally conclude that death by inhalation, whether voluntary or involuntary, conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional, is excluded by the policy language. See id. at 726; Transport Life, 491 S.W.2d at 448; King, 72 F.2d at 624. However, we are not presented with a situation similar to those presented above. In the present case, Robert Nuckolls was trapped, unconscious and inebriated, in a burning car. Eventually, he succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning. If he had not, he would have died in the fire, a fire so intense that the [recovered] body itself was unidentifiable. (R. at 51.) The question in this case is: would reasonably intelligent people disagree as to whether a person who expires from carbon monoxide poisoning moments before they certainly would have been burned to death died from the taking of poison or gas, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, accidental or otherwise? If they would, then there exists an ambiguity which we must resolve in the insured's favor. We agree with Judge Friedlander in holding that reasonably intelligent people would disagree over the meaning of the language in this situation. As Judge Friedlander noted in his dissent, I firmly believe that the average person, when apprised of the circumstances of Robert's unfortunate death, would not respond to the question, `How did Robert die?' with the answer, `He took gas.' USA Life, 663 N.E.2d at 546. Instead, they would most probably answer that Robert died in or from the fire. Thus, this exclusion is ambiguous as applied to Robert Nuckolls' death. Applying the rules of construction, we resolve the ambiguity as a matter of law in the insured's favor and hold that the exclusion does not apply in this case. We also must note a slightly different reason the exclusion does not apply here. As stated above, insurance contracts are subject to the same rules of construction as are other contracts. Eli Lilly, 482 N.E.2d at 470. When interpreting the meaning of the words used in a contract, they should be given their plain, ordinary, and popularly accepted meanings. Haworth v. Hubbard, 220 Ind. 611, 44 N.E.2d 967, 968 (1942); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 202(3)(a) (1979); INDIANA ENCYCLOPEDIA, CONTRACTS § 119 (1958). This proposition is true for insurance contracts as well. See Tate, 587 N.E.2d at 668. However, if the plain and ordinary meaning would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, then the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further. Haworth, 44 N.E.2d at 968; see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 202 cmt. e. (1979); INDIANA ENCYCLOPEDIA, CONTRACTS § 119 (1958). Courts in Indiana have invoked this rule of construction when interpreting insurance contracts as well. See Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174, 179 (Ind.Ct.App.1977); Stucker v. College Life Ins. Co., 139 Ind.App. 422, 438, 208 N.E.2d 731, 739 (1965). This rule of construction applies without doubt in the present case. Robert Nuckolls purchased a life insurance policy with an additional benefit provision for accidental death. The accidental death benefit provision paid Robert's beneficiaries an extra $10,000 if his death was accidental. The provision did not exclude death due to fire, but did exclude death from the taking of poison or gas. Robert was in his car when it caught on fire. He died from carbon monoxide poisoning, and then his body was consumed by fire to the point of being unidentifiable. Herein lies the absurdity. If one contends that carbon monoxide poisoning is excluded from coverage while burning to death is not, then Robert's beneficiaries are denied coverage solely because he could not keep breathing long enough to be burned to death. As Judge Friedlander voiced in his dissent: Robert would have been covered by the policy had he burned to death before succumbing to the carbon monoxide gas, but he is not covered because the gas overcame him first. I find this result illogical and inconsistent with the intent of the parties. USA Life, 663 N.E.2d at 546. Carried to its logical conclusion, USA Life's interpretation of the exclusion language would lead to an absurd result that is inconsistent with the intent of the parties and the purpose of the agreement. For this reason also, we interpret the policy in the Nuckolls' favor. USA Life offers a second reason as to why the Nuckolls should be precluded from recovering accidental death benefits. USA Life contends that, even if the death is attributable to the alcohol rather than the carbon monoxide, USA Life is still entitled to summary judgment. USA Life offers two arguments to support this contention. First, USA Life argues that the grain alcohol in Robert Nuckolls' system was also poison within the meaning of the policy exclusion. Second, USA Life argues that Robert's intoxication was a purely voluntary act, and that because his death can be linked to the intoxication, it cannot fit under an accidental death benefits policy. USA Life's first argument centers around the meaning of the word poison. As stated several times above, when the language of the insurance policy is unambiguous, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Tate, 587 N.E.2d at 668. One dictionary defines poison as a substance causing illness or death when eaten, drunk, or absorbed even in relatively small quantities. WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 1101 (2d ed. 1982). Black's Law Dictionary defines poison as a substance having an inherent deleterious property which renders it, when taken into the system, capable of destroying life. A substance which, on being applied to the human body, internally or externally, is capable of destroying the action of the vital functions, or of placing the solids and fluids in such a state as to prevent the continuance of life. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1041 (5th ed. 1979). USA Life would have us agree that the alcohol which Robert Nuckolls drank is poison under the death benefit exclusion. Apparently USA Life bases it claim upon the January 3, 1994 affidavit of Dr. Roland Kohr. Dr. Kohr noted that [e]thanol (grain alcohol) is also a poisonous substance capable of causing death in humans. (R. at 37.) We do not, however, rely upon a medical opinion to define the language as found in an insurance policy. We follow the plain, ordinary, and everyday definition of the language. In this case, the plain and ordinary definition of poison connotes a substance which is caustic enough to lead to death even in small doses. We do not believe that alcohol, whatever problems it may cause, would fall under the common parlance as poison. USA Life's second argument concerns whether the Nuckolls are precluded from recovery because Robert's voluntary act of drinking was a contributing factor. Specifically, USA Life, relying again on Dr. Kohr's affidavit, argues that Robert's intoxication impaired his ability to escape from the burning car and reduced the level of carbon monoxide necessary for death. Thus, USA Life argues, the death was not accidental because some of the preceding conduct was voluntary. USA Life attempts to take an approach that is not consistent with the policy language and may not be consistent with the law in Indiana and a majority of jurisdictions. USA Life is apparently attempting to require that both the actions which lead to the death and the death, as a result of those actions, be accidental. Such a distinction has been called the difference between death by accidental means and death because of accidental results. [1] Even if we would be willing to go against Indiana case law and the weight of authority on this question, USA Life's policy does not support this argument. Robert Nuckolls' accidental death benefits policy defines a covered injury as Accidental bodily injury ... which result in the Insured's death. (R. at 11.)(emphasis added.) There is no evidence to show that Robert's injuries which resulted in his death were anything other than accidental, no matter the volition of his initial actions. Therefore, his intoxication did not prevent him from being covered. See Harrell v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co., 937 S.W.2d 809 (Tenn.1996). Under the undisputed facts of this case, we find that USA Life is not entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Neither death due to carbon monoxide poisoning nor death due in some part to intoxication are excluded under the accidental death policy provision.