Court Opinion

ID: 9460086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:40:12.593938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:27.798598
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellee has filed a petition for rehearing and therein relies heavily on a decision of the Utah Supreme Court handed down subsequent to oral arguments and the decisional process had in this case. Elton v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 516 P.2d 165 (filed November 20, 1973). We did not have an opportunity to consider this case in our opinion.
Elton involved a suit by the beneficiary of an accident policy to recover death benefits provided in the policy. Benefits were to be paid if the insured’s death was a result of “a bodily injury causing death (the loss) directly and independently of all other causes and effected solely through an accidental bodily injury.” (This language is similar to that contained in the Wright policy). The deceased suffered a heart attack in 1954, a stroke in 1969, and died in 1970. The autopsy and testimony of two doctors showed death resulted from a cerebral vascular disease, aggravated by progressive arteriosclerosis. The court denied recovery, stating it was evident from the term “aggravation” that death could not have resulted from an accident directly and independently of all other causes. Through dictum, however, the court stated it would have been a different case if aggravation had not existed.
*365Relying upon Elton, appellee contends Utah law allows recovery for a heart attack where there is no evidence of a pre-existing injury. We believe Elton and the present case can be distinguished.
Under both policies the injury must be the sole, independent cause of death. The autopsy and doctor’s testimony in Elton established the deceased’s injuries. Wright’s injuries, however, remain unknown. How can it be said that his injury was the sole, independent cause of death when the injury and the cause of death are unknown? Several theories were presented, but none was proven. Assuming a heart attack is within the terms of the policy, appellee still failed in her burden of proof.
The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.