Court Opinion

ID: 9582696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:30:25.839148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:15.039319
License: Public Domain

Carlisle, Judge.
This was a suit to recover additional indemnity on account of accidental death of the insured on two policies of life insurance. One of the policies contained an exclusion under the additional benefits provision that where death resulted from suicide whether sane or insane such benefits would not be provided, and the other contained an exclusion that where death resulted from self-destruction, whether sane or insane, such -benefits would not be provided. The evidence showed that the deceased took his 22-caliber rifle and went out of the house stating to his wife (the plaintiff) that he was going hunting; that he stopped iii the back yard and squatted down petting his Boxer dog and was last seen holding the rifle in his right hand and thus engaged some five or ten minutes before the witnesses heard the fatal shot, and that upon hearing the shot, the witnesses found the deceased lying on his back mortally woun'ded by a bullet fired at close range. There was testimony that the insured had never evidenced an intention to commit suicide and the evidence otherwise affirmatively showed that he had no difficulties which would apparently induce such an intent. There was evidence that the gun was defective and could be accidentally discharged merely by being jolted, and the, death certificate introduced stated that the cause of death was suicide and that the fatal wound was self-inflicted. The jury found for the plaintiff and the defendant made a motion for a new trial which was amended by the addition of one special ground am- ’ plifying the general grounds, and the exception here is to the judgment denying that motion. Held:
The tenn “self-destruction” as used in the exclusion of policy .benefits under the double indemnity provision of the second policy will be construed to mean intentional self-destruction, and when so construed is synonymous with the word “suicide.” *583Colonial Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Croom, 96 Ga. App. 264, 265 (99 S. E. 2d 554). Accidental self-destruction is not legally suicide. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Durden, 9 Ga. App. 797 (5) (72 S. E. 295). The law never presumes suicide, but on the contrary, the legal presumption is against suicide. While the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, the direct evidence as to the facts in this case,' when aided by the presumption, against suicide, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the deceased died accidentally within the meaning of that term as used in the. policy sued on. This is true notwithstanding the death certificate introduced in evidence which showed that the cause of the insured’s death was due to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This evidence merely created a conflict, but did not demand a finding that the death was suicide. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Burson, 50 Ga. App. 859 (179 S. E. 390); Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Bentley, 55 Ga. App. 272 (190 S. E. 50); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 55 Ga. App. 554 (190 S. E. 873). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial, on the general grounds and on the one special ground.
Decided October 23, 1958
Rehearing denied November 10, 1958.
Wm. A. Ingram,, for plaintiff in error.
Neel & Ault, J. M. Neel, Jr., contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.