Court Opinion

ID: 9729696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:46:40.490004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.564609
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: I would affirm the appellate court for the reasons stated there. 54 Ill. App. 3d 192, 194-97. The majority opinion has amassed an impressive array of cases and arguments supporting the 90-day limitation on double or additional indemnity payments in life insurance policies and evidencing that the limitation is not against public policy. Moreover, the majority’s view that deference, not absolute, should be given to decisions, made by the Director of the Department of Insurance pursuant to legislative command, is correct. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 73, pars. 755, 1013; Stofer v. Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 361.) However, I am not persuaded by the majority’s implication that the Director’s approval of the 90-day limitation was the only reasonable exercise of his discretion. I believe that consideration of public policy dictates disapproval of the 90-day limitation: “[W] henever any contract conflicts with the morals of the time, and contravenes any established interest of society, it is void as being against public policy.” 54 Ill. App. 3d 192, 196. In Burne v. Franklin Life Ins. Co. (1973), 451 Pa. 218, 221-24, 301 A.2d 799, 801-02, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said: . “There are strong public policy reasons which militate against the enforceability of the ninety day limitation. The provision has its origins at a much earlier stage of medicine. Accordingly, the leading case construing the provision predates three decades of progress in the field of curative medicine. Advancements made during that period have enabled the medical profession to become startlingly adept at delaying death for indeterminate periods. Physicians and surgeons now stand at the very citadel of death, possessing the awesome responsibility of sometimes deciding whether and what measure should be used to prolong, even though momentarily, an individual’s life. The legal and ethical issues attending such deliberations are gravely complex. The result reached by the trial court presents a gruesome paradox indeed — it would permit double indemnity recovery for the death of an accident victim who dies instantly or within ninety days of an accident, but would deny such recovery for the death of an accident victim who endures the agony of prolonged illness, suffers longer, and necessitates greater expense by his family in hopes of sustaining life even momentarily beyond the ninety day period. To predicate liability under a life insurance policy upon death occurring only on or prior to a specific date, while denying policy recovery if death occurs after that fixed date, offends the basic concepts and fundamental objectives of life insurance and its [sic] contrary to public policy. Hence, the ninety day limitation is unenforceable. *** [T] he decisions as to what medical treatment should be accorded an accident victim should be unhampered by considerations which might have a tendency to encourage something less than the maximum medical care on penalty of financial loss if such care succeeds in extending life beyond the 90th day. All such factors should, wherever possible, be removed from the antiseptic halls of the hospital. Rejection of the arbitrary ninety day provision does exactly that. *** [Virtually every *** case [which has] construed a ninety day limitation provision, is based on considerations which have no pragmatic applicability to the factual situation here. The earlier judicial interpretation of the ninety day provision was that its underlying purpose was to govern situations where there existed some possible uncertainty over whether injuries sustained in an accident would actually result in death. The ninety day provision attempted to delineate a line governing cases where the injuries may or may not cause death. Ninety days was the arbitrary period advanced by the carrier within which to ascertain whether death will in fact result from the accident.” (Emphasis added.) I agree with those statements. Accord, Karl v. New York Life Ins. Co. (1977), 154 N.J. Super. 182, 381 A.2d 62. See Note, Death Be Not Proud—The Demise of Double Indemnity Time Limitations, 23 DePaul L. Rev. 854 (1974). I further believe that an insured is placed at a distinct disadvantage, as is frequently the case where insurance contracts and policies are concerned, of not having been able to negotiate any of the provisions. The 90-day limitation “within the provision is not reached by process of negotiation between the parties but is a standard time which the individual must accept if he desires the accidental death protection.” (23 DePaul L. Rev. 854, 861.) The insurance applicant is relegated to the role of either adhering to or rejecting, but not changing or amending, a standardized contract drafted by a party with greater bargaining strength. The majority has missed an opportunity to establish a more humane practice of permitting additional indemnity recovery where causation is not at issue. Modern medical technology and medical ethics have dictated a public policy which requires terminating adherence to an arbitrary time limit devised decades ago. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD joins in this dissent.