Court Opinion

ID: 9713815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:23:03.457552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.753041
License: Public Domain

HIBBS, P. J., dissenting. The policy in this case provided coverage for an injury or death “suffered as the result of bodily injuries sustained solely through external, violent and accidental means independently of all other causes.” The injury and death of the insured resulted solely from the fire and explosion of the gasoline he himself spread and feloniously intended should be ignited to destroy the dwelling, and which was ignited and destroyed it. The resulting death of the insured cannot be said to have been either caused “solely ... by accidental means, or independently of all other causes.” It may be conceded the deceased in the commission of the unlawful act did not intend to cause his death but did intend to survive and collect his share of the insurance. However, his act of going into the dwelling after he had assisted in spreading the gasoline to remove some bed clothes for himself before the building was ignited was so inseparably connected with the arson plan and conspiracy in conduct and timing that there is no occasion for the discussion of proximate cause. The intendments of our criminal code are such that to permit a recovery under the facts in this cause would be contrary to the public policy of the State. (Bradley v. Fox, 7 Ill.2d 106, 23 A.L.R.2d, p. 1106.) Although the beneficiary under this policy is guiltless, I do not believe she should profit by reason of the fact that the policy holder lost his life while engaged in a felonious offense contrary to the criminal statutes of this State. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.