Court Opinion

ID: 9672952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:03:10.842438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:00.699829
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(dissenting). This was an unfortunate death made more so by the fact that, in my opinion, it was not covered by the double indemnity provisions of the insurance policy. The qualifying language rules out a death such as happened here. It covers only a death which “shall occur as the direct result of bodily injury and independent of all other causes, effected solely through external, violent and accidental means, as evidenced by a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body (except in the case of drowning or internal injuries revealed by an autopsy), . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The exception clause, according to all accepted rules of syntax and legal construction, modifies only the phrase “a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body” even though internal injuries were revealed by an autopsy.
The insurance policy could have covered the death but it did not. We cannot remake the insurance contract.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Hallows joins in this dissent.