Court Opinion

ID: 9750603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:10:18.722412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:13.934292
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell:
I dissent.
Everyone agrees that this decedent died of an overdose of narcotics which he intentionally, not accidentally, took. Under the double indemnity provisions of this insurance policy, recovery was permitted only if bodily injury was effected through accidental means * *120It is incomprehensible to me that a reasonable construction of that clause could provide an interpretation-that “accidental” means or includes death resulting from, an intentional act of the deceased, as the majority Opinion holds. The majority Opinion not only distorts the clear language of the contract but also overrules the long and well settled law of this Commonwealth that recovery should be denied unless the proximate cause of death was the result of an accidental event. Frame v. Prudential Ins. Co., 358 Pa. 103, 56 A. 2d 76 (1948); O’Neill v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 345 Pa. 232, 26 A. 2d 898 (1942); Arnstein v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 329 Pa. 158, 196 Atl. 491 (1938); Hesse v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 299 Pa. 125, 149 Atl. 96 (1930); Pollock v. United States Mut. Accident Ass’n, 102 Pa. 230 (1883); Zuliskey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 363, 48 A. 2d 141 (1946); Semancik v. Continental Casualty Co., 56 Pa. Superior Ct. 392 (1914).

 “Bodily injury not hereinafter excepted effected directly and Independently of all other causes through accidental means shall be sustained by a participant while insured under this part and shall result [in death].” (Emphasis added)