Court Opinion

ID: 9549042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:12:25.609107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:45.845173
License: Public Domain

BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s allocation of the burden of proof. However, I cannot agree with their conclusion that the beneficiary of an insured who kills himself while unable to comprehend the moral consequences or general nature of his act can be deprived of benefits under his insurance policy. In reaching their conclusion, the majority rely on 19th century contract law that has long since been rendered obsolete by the modern doctrine of adhesion contracts.
I.
It is not disputed that insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion. Hence, any ambiguities must be read against the insurer. (Silberg v. Calif*442ornia Life Ins. Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 452, 464 [113 Cal.Rptr. 711, 521 P.2d 1103].) “If the insurer uses language which is uncertain any reasonable doubt will be resolved against it; if the doubt relates to extent or fact of coverage, ... the language will be understood in its most inclusive sense, for the benefit of the insured.” (Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Constr. Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 423, 437-438 [296 P.2d 801, 57 A.L.R.2d 914].) In determining whether a provision is ambiguous, its terms are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense. (See generally, Civ. Code, § 1644.)
Applying common dictionary definitions, the clause excluding from coverage “suicide, whether sane or insane” is patently ambiguous. The modifying clause “sane or insane” directly contradicts the term “suicide.” Webster’s defines “suicide” as “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally . . .[,] the deliberate and intentional destruction of his own life by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind . . . .” (Webster’s Third New Internal. Diet. (1961) p. 2286, italics added.)1 “Insane” is defined as “. . . exhibiting unsoundness or disorder of mind . . . .” (Id., at p. 1167, italics added.)
Hence, according to the common dictionary definitions, it is doubtful whether an “insane” person could commit suicide.2 A concerned consumer who took the time to read the full terms of the policy might well place his *443or her emphasis on the “voluntary” and “deliberate” character of suicide, and thus consider the excluded risk to be under his or her full control.3
Nevertheless, the majority maintain that the clause is unambiguous. They point out that their construction is supported by a line of cases stretching back over 100 years. However, the very longevity of this authority exposes its weakness.
The leading case is Bigelow v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. (1876) 93 U.S. 284 [23 L.Ed. 918]. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 436-437.) Unlike the present majority, the Bigelow court recognized that—read literally—the clause might be subject to differing interpretations. (93 U.S. at p. 286 [23 L.Ed. at p. 919].) However, under the principles of contract law then in force, there was no doctrine of adhesion contracts. (See generally, Comment, Contracts of Adhesion Under California Law (1967) 1 U.S.F. L.Rev. 306, 307.) Hence, the court was under no compulsion to construe ambiguities against the insurance company.
Instead, the Bigelow court did just the opposite. It sought to effectuate the purposes of the insurance company. The court noted that the term “suicide” standing alone did not apply to an insane person who took his own life. (93 U.S. at p. 286 [23 L.Ed. at p. 919].) “But,” the court reasoned, “the insurers in this case have gone further, and sought to avoid altogether this class of risks. . . . Nothing can be clearer than that the words, ‘sane or insane,’ were introduced for the purpose of excepting from the operation of the policy any intended self-destruction, whether the insured was of sound mind or in a state of insanity.” (Id., at pp. 286-287 [23 L.Ed. at p. 919].)4
The court concluded, as do the majority today, that an insured need only comprehend the physical nature of his act to come within the “suicide” *444exclusion. (93 U.S. at p. 287 [23 L.Ed. at p. 919]; maj. opn., ante, at p. 439.) Bigelow subsequently spawned a long line of cases applying this construction. (See generally, Annot., Insurance: Construction of “Sane or Insane” Provision of Suicide Exclusion (1966) 9 A.L.R.3d 1015.)
Bigelow and its progeny do not comport with the modern doctrine of adhesion contracts. Their reliance on the intent of the insurance company as the prime indicator of contractual meaning is entirely out of place under the modern rule that ambiguities must be construed against the insurer. (See Silberg v. California Life Ins. Co., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 464.)
As the above quoted dictionary definitions make clear, the clause is not only ambiguous but also self-contradictory when its terms are given their ordinary and popular meaning. (See ante, at p. 442.) The conflict between the term “suicide” and its modifier, “sane or insane,” must be resolved against the insurer. Accordingly, the language “sane or insane” should be given no effect.
II.
In a previous appeal of this case, the Court of Appeal characterized the mental capacity required to commit “suicide” as consisting simply of “sanity.” (Searle v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 614 [158 Cal.Rptr. 5] (hereafter Searle I).) I join the majority in rejecting this misleading characterization.
“Sanity” is an amorphous concept that takes on meaning according to the context of its usage. The issue in the present case is not “sanity” in the abstract, but the mental capacity necessary to commit suicide within the meaning of the exclusion. (Compare M’Naughton’s Case (1843) 10 Clark & Fin. 200 [for purposes of the insanity defense in criminal law, “insanity” signifies an inability to distinguish right from wrong].) The Searle I court erred in failing to specify the particular degree of sanity required. It was this omission that engendered the error on remand.5
The great majority of jurisdictions hold that where “suicide” is excluded from coverage without the “sane or insane” modifier, the insurer is liable *445unless the insured was able to comprehend not only the physical nature and consequences of his act, but also its moral character and general nature. (See 43 Am.Jur.2d, supra, at p. 607, and cases cited.) This rule accords with the reasonable expectations of the insured, who is likely to believe that “suicide” is a voluntary and deliberate act under his or her full control. (See, e.g., Webster’s Third New Internat. Diet., supra, at p. 2286.)
In conclusion, there is an obvious ambiguity in the phrase “suicide, whether sane or insane.” Under the common dictionary definitions of “suicide” and “insane,” an insane person cannot commit suicide. An insurance consumer is likely to think of “suicide” as a voluntary act under his or her full control. Under modern principles of contract law, the contradiction must be resolved against the insurer. Accordingly, this court should hold that the “sane or insane” modifier is ineffective. Applying the general rule of construction to a “suicide” exclusion clause, the beneficiary should have an opportunity to prove that the insured was incapable of understanding either the physical nature and consequences of his act or its moral character and general nature. (See 43 Am Jur.2d, supra, at p. 607, and cases cited.)
In support of their contrary construction, the majority rely on a line of cases stretching back over a century. Unfortunately for their rationale, the very longevity of this authority reveals its weakness. The initial—and leading-cases rested on the firm foundation of 19th century contract law. Since then, that foundation has crumbled under the weight of the modem doctrine of adhesion contracts. (See generally, Tobriner & Grodin, supra, 55 Cal.L.Rev. at pp. 1273, 1276.) Now is not the time for this court to return to 19th century concepts of contract law.

Similarly, Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1970) defines “suicide” as “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally esp. by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind . . . .” (Id., at p. 879, italics added.)
Although dictionary definitions might not always provide accurate indicators of common meaning, they are certainly superior to century-old legal opinions, such as that relied upon by the majority. (See post, at pp. 447-448.)

The majority implicitly acknowledge this contradiction. Under their approach, the beneficiary may negate a showing of intentional self-destruction by proving that the deceased was “unable to understand the physical nature and consequences of his act.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 429.) In common parlance, this “inability” is nothing more or less than one particular degree of insanity. (See 43 Am.Jur.2d (2d ed. 1982) Insurance, § 537, pp. 607, 608, fh. 29.)
Unfortunately, the majority obfuscate the issue in the present case by attempting to maintain a distinction between “insanity” and the inability of an insured to form the requisite intent to commit suicide. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 436-437.) Of course, by some definitions of insanity, an “insane” person may commit suicide. (See ante, at p. 432.) However, the issue in the present case is not whether a person who is “insane” in the abstract can commit suicide. The issue is, rather, the particular degree of insanity or lack of capacity that renders a person incapable of forming the intent to commit suicide within the meaning of the exclusion. (Cf. 39 Cal.Jur.3d Insurance Contracts, § 249, p. 493 [“It is universally recognized that self-destruction while insane is not suicide within a provision against death by suicide; the only conflict in the authorities is with reference to the degree of insanity which will nullify the provision”].)

It is generally recognized that, in actual practice, most consumers do not even bother to read form contracts. (See Rakoff, Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction (1983) 96 Harv.L.Rev. 1174, 1179 [hereafter Rakoff], and sources cited.) Hence, unambiguous contractual provisions may provide little more protection than ambiguous ones. Accordingly, it has been suggested that insurance contracts should be interpreted not solely on the basis of their terms, but also in light of the “reasonable expectation of the average insured.” (Tobriner & Grodin, The Individual and the Public Service Enterprise in the New Industrial State (1967) 55 Cal.L.Rev. 1247, 1273 [hereafter Tobriner & Grodin].) One commentator has gone further, suggesting that since form contracts no longer indicate any meaningful consent by the consumer, all terms of such contracts should be presumptively invalid. (See Rakoff, supra, 96 Harv.L.Rev. 1174.)
Because the currently well-established doctrine of construing ambiguities against the insurer suffices to resolve the present case, I find it unnecessary to speculate on the applicability of these other theories.

The court also reasoned that the words of the clause had a “precise, definite, well-understood meaning,” and that “[n]o one could be misled by them . . . .” (93 U.S. at p. 287 [23 L.Ed. at p. 919].) However, as the above-quoted dictionary definitions make clear, the clause is self-contradictory under the modem definitions.

For example, one of defendant’s experts defined “insanity” as the level of incapacity at which a person could be committed to a hospital against his or her will. That usage of the term bears at most a tangential relationship to an insured’s capacity to form the intent to commit suicide. The determination of whether a person may be involuntarily institutionalized centers not on his inability to understand the nature of an act such as self-destruction, but on such factors as his lack of ability “to provide for . . . basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5008, subd. (h)(1); 5350, 5352.6.)