Court Opinion

ID: 53248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 01:23:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.077194
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  This case was scheduled for oral argument. Pursuant to the consent of counsel, however, the appeal was submitted on the briefs.
 

  After careful consideration of the briefs, record and the district court’s helpful opinion, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. With respect to plaintiffs accidental death and dismemberment claim, we readily conclude that Principal Life’s determination— that the injury did not result from external, violent and accidental means — was not wrong. The “external, violent and accidental means” clause was not satisfied by plaintiffs designated cause, the surgery. Alternately, we also conclude that the claim was properly denied because a pre
   
   *464
   
  policy 1962 eye injury was a contributing cause of plaintiffs loss, so that plaintiff also failed to satisfy the “direct and sole cause of loss” clause.
 

  With respect to plaintiffs accelerated life insurance claim, we also conclude that Principal Life’s determination — that plaintiff failed to satisfy the “expected to die within twelve months” requirement— was not wrong. We reject plaintiffs argument that the limiting condition — “in the absence of extensive or extraordinary medical treatment” — applies to the “expected to die within twelve months” clause, or otherwise renders that clause ambiguous. That limiting condition applies to the definition of “Qualifying Event”, but not to the “expected to die within twelve months” requirement.
 

  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
 

  AFFIRMED.