Court Opinion

ID: 9565764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:27:08.212616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.869176
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority. The insurance policy being considered does not cover or insure against a fatality caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury of any kind.
Here the injection of the heroin by Marc Catania was a bodily injury inflicted upon himself. The piercing of his body with the needle was intentional and not accidental. The resulting death was an ever present reality that should have been expected and foreseen.
In Gordon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 260 A.2d 338, 340 (Md. 1970), that court said:
“. . . [w]ith the use of an illegal drug without medical authorization or supervision, a drug with well known potential for injury, we are hard pressed to say that a great amount of risk was not assumed, or was unforeseeable.”
See Whiteside v. New York Life Ins. Company, 503 P.2d 1107 (Wash.App. 1972).
Furthermore, one of the purposes of the “risks not assumed” clause in the policy is to deny additional benefit for death indirectly caused by an intentional self-inflicted injury of any kind even if a death so caused would be within the coverage of the “benefit” clause. Jackson v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 393 S.W.2d 233 (Ark. 1965); Independent Life and Accident *536Ins. Co. v. Causby, 94 S.E.2d 388 (Ga.App. 1956); Cf. Knowlton v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 79 A.2d 581 (Me. 1951).
The usual and ordinary definition of accidental does not include intentional bodily injury. Marc Catania’s intentional self-injection of heroin was not an accidental bodily injury; therefore, appellant is not entitled to double indemnity benefits. I agree with Justice Manoukian that no excess liability exists in this case and that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.