Court Opinion

ID: 9536980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:10:37.371565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:41.036735
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, C. J.,
Specially Concurring.
I reach the same result as the majority but by different reasoning.
The majority opinion, following the previously adopted distinction between accidental means (cause) and accidental result (effect), finds that the means producing the injury were accidental.
Assuming that the distinction provides a workable basis for classifying those injuries which are covered under accident insurance policies and those that are not, I do not think that we have any basis for deciding whether the events leading up to the injury in this case were “accidental.”
The majority arrives at its conclusion by first defining “accidental” in terms of the unexpectedness of the occurrence producing the injury. This does not advance the analysis of the problem because it attempts to define the word “accidental” by reference to another word (unexpectedness) which is at the *408same level of abstraction. I doubt that all unexpected occurrences from which an injury flows would be commonly understood as “accidental.” I cannot prove that this is so because there is no empirical data indicating how the term “accidental” is used and understood in common parlance.
The adjudicated eases demonstrate that the courts, at least, do not agree on what is embraced within the “accidental” category. The confusion springs in large part from the differences in opinion as to what constitutes an “unexpected” event or occurrence. Whether an event leading up to an injury is to be regarded as unexpected or expected will depend upon the frequency with which events of that kind commonly occur in similar situations. If the event is reasonably foreseeable, it is not an accidental event that the injury ensuing is not an injury by accidental means, adopting the formula allowing recovery only if the cause is accidental.
In the present case the unexpected events relied upon by the majority are the absence of the axe, the failure of the foreman to take plaintiff to a warming shack, and the absence of a car with a heater during lunchtime. All these, it may be conceded, were unexpected events, but the question is whether they are the type of unexpected events which would characterize them as accidental according to the common understanding of that term. Personally, I do not know what that understanding might be. It does not strike me as unusual that the axe and the car with a heater were not at the work site, or that plaintiff’s transportation was delayed. It would seem that if these events were “accidental means,” then almost any circumstance can be transformed into an accident within the meaning of an accident insurance policy.
*409Thus, I would assume that the court would hold that if the insured suffered a frostbite injury because the temperature dropped below that which he anticipated, or if he failed to dress warmly enough, or was exposed to the cold for a longer period than anticipated the injury would result from accidental means.
I do not say that the injury suffered by plaintiff was not accidental; I simply say that I do not know and I do not think that the majority of the court stands in any better position.
I concur in the result on the ground that when an insurance contract contains an ambiguous term which we have no way of resolving, the insurance contract is to be construed against the insurer.
I would add that I do not think that the distinction between accidental means and accidental results is workable and, therefore, I feel that we should abolish it. See the dissent by Cardozo, J., in Landress v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 291 US 491, 54 S Ct 461, 464, 78 L Ed 934, 938 (1934); Note, Insurance-Accidental Means v. Accidental Death, or Tweedledum v. Tweedledee, 46 N C L Rev 178 (1967); Note, 36 Ind L J 376 (1961). I recognize that even though the distinction is abolished the problem of drawing the line between injuries that are accidental and those that are not still remains. But unless insurers word their policies more clearly they will have to bear the burdens arising from their own ambiguities. Ultimately, of course, these burdens will be shifted to the purchasers of insurance in the form of higher premiums.
Holman, J., concurs in this opinion.