Death at the hands of the law Death by self - destruction Death by suicide while insane Death caused by beneficiary

Death caused by beneficiary Death caused by violation

While many courts hold that the insurer
is not liable for the death of the insured
at the hands of the law, even though
such risk is not expressly excepted in
the policy, Professor Vance, in his
treatise on insurance, is of the opinion
that the better view is that the death of
the insured at the hands of the law — as
by legal execution — is one of the risks
assumed by the insurer under a life
insurance policy in the absence of a
valid policy exception.
Professor Vance is also of the
opinion that, by the weight of
authority, death by suicide is not by
implication exempted from the risks
assumed by the insurer under a life
insurance policy especially where
the insurance is for the benefit of
another rather than the insured. But
procuring a policy with intent to
commit suicide is obviously
fraudulent and avoids the insurance,
( insurer from his liability on his
Where the insured is
insane, it is the settled rule in all
jurisdictions that, in the absence of
express conditions to the contrary
(as where the policy excludes from
among the risks assumed by the
insurer death of the insured by
suicide [or by self-destruction or by
his own hand or act], "sane or
insane"), the suicide of an insured
while insane does not discharge the
contract. Such insanity is one of the
diseases to which the insurer must
have known that the insured was
subject and the unwitting act of self-
destruction is as much the
consequence of that disease as if
some vital organs were totally
affected.
On the broad ground of public
policy that prohibits anyone from
profiting by his own wrong,
where the beneficiary, as
principal, accomplice, or,
intentionally brings about the
death of the insured under such
circumstances as to amount to a
felony, he cannot receive any
benefit under the contract of
insurance. His interest shall be
forfeited, in which event, the
nearest relative of the insured
shall receive the proceeds of said
insurance if not otherwise
disqualified. (Sec. 12.)
of law
The mere fact that the
insured died while he was
committing a felony or
violating a law would not
warrant denial of liability.
To avoid liability, the
insurer must further
establish that the
commission of the felony
or the violation of law was
the cause or had a casual
connection with the
accident resulting in the
death of the insured.

In view, however, of the provision of However, the beneficiary is not

Section 87it is quite clear that the deprived of the insurance
insurer is not liable in case the proceeds in every case where the
insured commits suicide beneficiary killed the insured.
intentionally, with whatever motive, Thus, where the death of the
when in sound mind. To hold insured was caused under
otherwise is to say that the circumstances as do not amount
occurrence of the event, upon the to a felony as when the killing
happening of which the insurer was accidental or in self-defense,
undertook to pay, was intended to be or where the beneficiary was
left to insured's option. That view is insane, the rights of the
against the very essence of the beneficiary under the policy are
contract. not affected. It has also been held
that even though the beneficiary
as guilty of a felony, the
beneficiary's interest in the
insurance is not forfeited where

The rule applies with equal force and
there can be no recovery
if the insured, being in the
possession of his ordinary reasoning
facilities, from anger, pride,
jealousy, or a desire to escape from
the ills of life, intentionally takes his
own life.
The reason for this is that the death
is still caused by the voluntary act of
the insured, he knowing and
intending that his death shall be the
result of his act. (Life Ins. Co. vs.
Terry, 15 Wall. 580.) But death
which is purely accidental, even
though due to the insured's own
carelessness or negligence is not
excluded from the coverage by the
words "self-destruction/' "death by
his own hand," and the
like which are generally considered
synonymous with suicide.
the insured's death was not
intentionally caused.
Suppose, the beneficiary
murdered the insured prompted
by
a motive other than gain, are the
beneficiary's rights forfeited?
It may be argued that the purpose
is to deter murders for gain;
hence, if the beneficiary killed
the insured because of jealousy
for instance, the denial of
recovery on the insurance policy
would not have presented itself
to his mind as a deterrent.
However, the moral sentiment of
the community is not so
discriminating; punishment is
still looked upon as retribution.
Moreover, a court can seldom be
quite sure that pecuniary gain
was not a contributing motive of
the crime. Hence, it is well-
settled that a deliberate killing
(murder) of the insured by the
beneficiary suffices to work a
forfeiture. The insurer may
properly insert in the contract an
express provision excepting from
coverage death caused by the
beneficiary, whether lawfully or
unlawfully