Court Opinion

ID: 9658825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:16:46.566152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:00.220256
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(dissenting). The trial court was correct. Generally, one may not recover insurance for damages received as a direct result of his own criminal conduct while engaged in a crime of moral turpitude. 23 ALR2d 1105.
The policy in this case called for payment “to and for each person who sustains bodily injury.” Hence, we do not deal with a beneficiary foreign to the crime.
The risks of injury while engaged in burglary and escape from hot pursuit therefrom are certainly beyond the normal contemplation of the contracting parties. If included in such contemplation, such insurance would be void on grounds of public policy. Acme Insurance Co.  v. National Insurance Co. (1948), 118 Colo 445 (195 P2d 728, 4 ALR2d 131).
*460Distinctions are, of course, frequently recognized between such criminal conduct and misdemeanors, driving offenses, or criminal conduct not malum in se. See Pawlicki v. Hollenbeck, 250 Mich 38; Bowman v. Preferred Risk Ins. Co., 348 Mich 531.
Bowman v. Preferred Risk Ins. Co., incidentally, is not in point for reversal. That case did not involve damages which were a direct result of commission of a crime of moral turpitude. In fact, we said therein (p 545):
“Also, on grounds of public policy, it has been frequently held that felons cannot recover insurance for injuries or damages proximately caused by their own intentional crimes. Acme Insurance Co. v. National Insurance Co. 118 Colo 445 (195 P2d 728, 4 ALR2d 131); annotation 23 ALR2d 1105.”
The judgment should be affirmed. Costs to ap-pellee.
Dethmers, C. J., concurred with Edwards, J.