Court Opinion

ID: 9686946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:12:00.226236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.151864
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
(dissenting). In revisiting this matter upon the invitation of our Supreme *402Court, I find I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion.
Rather than look to other jurisdictions, I would prefer to read Wells v Prudential Ins Co of America, 3 Mich App 220; 142 NW2d 57 (1966), lv den 378 Mich 728 (1966), as authority for holding that, under the terms of this policy, injury or death resulting from voluntary intoxication can constitute an "accidental injury or death”. Unlike the policy before us, the policy in Wells, supra, provided that the injury or death must be "effected solely through external, violent and accidental means”. Even with this more restrictive language the Wells Court held recovery was possible and stated, at 227:
"If the unintended result of an intentional act can be accidental, so, too, can the result of a completely involuntary act be accidental.”
As a general principle, a contract is construed more strictly against the maker who chose the words to which the other party merely assented. 3 Corbin, Contracts § 559, p 262. Applying this principle and the above Wells analysis to the language in the instant policy, a chronic alcoholic’s unforeseen death from a single episode of drinking may reasonably be termed an "accidental bodily injury”.
The instant policy could have been drafted more restrictively so as to exclude death resulting from intoxication. It was not and therefore I would not preclude recovery.