Court Opinion

ID: 9579794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:44.290648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:46.827534
License: Public Domain

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.
1. Where the clerk of the superior court transmitted to this court a supplemental certificate filed *188under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals which showed that the transcript of the evidence was physically attached to the bill of exceptions and ahead of the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions when the judge signed the certificate and when the same was filed in the clerk’s office and, through inadvertence, the bill of exceptions was disassembled and the transcript removed therefrom and transmitted to this court as a part of the record in the case, the motion to dismiss the writ of error (treated as a motion for summary affirmance) on the ground that the evidence had not been approved by the trial judge will be denied, since it appears that the judge’s certificate, in view of the circumstances under which it was signed by him, did in fact certify to the correctness of the transcript of the evidence. Colquitt v. Solomon, 61 Ga. 492.
2. The verdict was properly directed for the defendant, for as was said in Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 213 Ga. 390, 391 (2) (99 SE2d 98), “Insurance against death by accident is usually, as here, afforded for a small premium and the coverage is correspondingly narrow. The liability is guarded by carefully chosen words, and a court has no more right by strained construction to make the policy more beneficial by extending the coverage contracted for than it would -have to increase the amount of the insurance. Deliberately to do either would be a judicial wrong.” There can be no accident, as a matter of law, without proof of facts pointing to death by accidental means. Johnson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 24 Ga. App. 431, 432 (101 SE 134). In cases where the facts proven show that the insured met his death by external and violent means which resulted in visible wounds or contusions on the exterior of the body, there is a presumption of accident as opposed to suicide (Templeton v. Kennesaw Life &c. Ins. Co., 216 Ga. 770, 771, 119 SE2d 549), but where there is no showing of external violent means producing visible wounds or contusions, if there is a presumption at all, it is that death was due to natural causes, and the burden is on the plaintiff to affirmatively prove accident. Johnson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra, p. 432; Continental Cas. Co. v. Pittman, 145 Ga. 641 (891 SE 717). In order to authorize a recovery under an accident policy such as here involved, before the plaintiff is aided by a presumption as to accident *189she must prove not only the death but that the insured died by external and violent means (New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jennings, 61 Ga. App. 557, 6 SE2d 431), and the plaintiff must show that in the act which preceded the injury alleged to have caused the death something “unforeseen, unexpected or unusual occurred.” Johnson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 24 Ga. App. 431 (3), supra. Assuming that the evidence in this case authorized the conclusion that the insured met his death through violent means as that term has been defined (see Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1742, and Caffaro v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 NJMisc. 167, 183 A 200), and that such violence was external and purely accidental, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show either that the autopsy revealed any internal injury or that there was a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body and she thus wholly failed to bring her case within the strict terms of the policy. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 213 Ga. 390, supra. This deficiency in her evidence was not cured or relieved by the bare statement contained in the death certificate that the insured’s death was due to accident. For this reason the trial judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant.
Decided April 30, 1962
Rehearing denied June 21, 1962.
Cook & Palmour, A. Cecil Palmour, for plaintiff in error.
Robert Edward Buries, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.