Bill v. FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
119 N.W. 2d 768, 1963 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 644, 254 Iowa 1215 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an insurance case where suicide is asserted as an affirmative defense, the insurer must prove its theory by circumstantial evidence that makes suicide reasonably probable and more probable than any other theory based on such evidence. Furthermore, an offer of proof consisting of separate questions and answers should not be rejected in its entirety as a 'bulk offer' if some parts are admissible.
Facts:
- LeRoy Leo Bill, a 17-year-old, was employed as a farmhand by Howard Niedert near Riceville, Iowa, beginning in September 1960.
- LeRoy was described as a happy, strong, and content individual who was proud of his strength, had no known financial or health issues, and had made plans for ice fishing the day after his death.
- On the late afternoon of January 12, 1961, LeRoy was engaged in chores on the Niedert farm and was last seen alive driving cattle.
- Later that evening, Howard Niedert discovered LeRoy’s legs extending through a small 22"x20" opening in the floor of the barn haymow.
- Upon climbing to the loft, Niedert found LeRoy hanging from an overhead two-by-eight-inch beam by a piece of binder twine tied in a square knot around his neck, with his hands positioned on or near the loft floor.
- The county medical examiner testified that death was caused by asphyxiation due to the constricting twine and opined that the injury was 'self-inflicted.'
- Another broken piece of binder twine and a piece with a slipknot were found nearby, which plaintiffs suggested indicated a prior 'unpleasant experiment.'
- LeRoy's parents, Ernest and Norma Bill, were beneficiaries of a life insurance policy issued by Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company on LeRoy’s life.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest and Norma Bill, as beneficiaries, filed an action against Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company to recover on their son LeRoy Bill's life insurance policy.
- Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company denied liability, alleging LeRoy Bill's death was a suicide, which would void the policy under its terms.
- The trial court submitted the question of suicide to a jury for determination.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Ernest and Norma Bill.
- Judgment was rendered by the trial court on the jury's verdict.
- Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the insurer, to overcome the presumption against suicide, must show that every other reasonable hypothesis or theory of death inconsistent with suicide has been excluded? 2. Did the trial court err by refusing to admit the medical examiner's testimony regarding an admission against interest made by LeRoy Bill's father?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
Yes, the trial court erred both in its jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for suicide and in excluding the medical examiner's testimony. The court reaffirmed that while the evidence could support a suicide verdict, it did not compel it, particularly considering the strong presumption against suicide, LeRoy's positive disposition, lack of motive, and the possibility of an accidental outcome from an experiment to test his strength. The court found that the long-standing rule requiring an insurer to exclude 'every other reasonable hypothesis' inconsistent with suicide in circumstantial evidence cases was unduly strict and unjust, as this standard had been abrogated in all other civil cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The court explicitly overruled prior case law that imposed this stricter burden, holding that circumstantial evidence in such cases now only needs to demonstrate a hypothesis that is reasonably probable and more probable than any other hypothesis based on the evidence. The court also found error in the exclusion of the medical examiner's testimony about Ernest Bill's non-verbal admission (a lateral headshake) in response to a question about his son committing suicide, viewing it as an admission against interest. The court clarified that evidence offered through separate questions and answers should not be treated as a single 'bulk offer' for exclusion purposes, even if one part might be inadmissible, thereby revising its previous stance in Vandell v. Roewe. This exclusion was deemed prejudicial, especially given that the plaintiffs were allowed to testify they knew no reason for their son to commit suicide. The court also noted that the medical examiner's official report should have been admitted into evidence under a new statute.
Dissenting - Larson, J.
No, the majority erred by overturning two well-established rules of law without adequate justification, thus denying the plaintiffs a deserved judgment overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Larson argued against reversing on the evidentiary point, asserting that the defendant's request to 'make an offer' should still be considered a 'bulk offer' under existing precedent (such as Vandell v. Roewe). Therefore, if any part of the offer (e.g., the doctor's interpretation of the headshake) was inadmissible, the entire offer could properly be rejected. He contended that the probative value of the headshake as an admission was 'almost nil' due to the parents' state of shock and grief, making its exclusion non-prejudicial error. Regarding the jury instruction on the burden of proof in suicide cases, Larson contended that the long-standing rule requiring the insurer to exclude 'every reasonable hypothesis of natural or accidental death' was a carefully considered and valid exception specific to insurance contracts. He emphasized that insurance companies incorporate suicide clauses with the understanding of this stricter burden, which aligns with the strong presumption against suicide and its association with 'moral turpitude.' He highlighted the crucial distinction between cases where beneficiaries must prove accidental death (where the majority's proposed rule would apply) and cases where the insurer bears the burden to prove suicide (where the stricter rule should rightfully remain).
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Snell, J.
Yes, the case should be reversed, but the question of suicide should not have been submitted to the jury at all. Snell believed this was an 'exceptional case' where the presumption against suicide had been overcome as a matter of law, meaning the evidence left 'no other logical conclusion' than suicide. He asserted that a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of an intentionally performed act, and death is a natural consequence of the actions LeRoy took. Therefore, the presumption against suicide was too weak to stand against the compelling facts in this particular case, concluding that there is no accident when a natural and almost inevitable result follows an intentional act.
Analysis:
This case significantly alters the legal landscape for insurance companies in Iowa defending against claims on the ground of suicide. By lowering the burden of proof from requiring the exclusion of 'every other reasonable hypothesis' to merely demonstrating suicide as 'more probable than any other hypothesis,' the Iowa Supreme Court makes it considerably easier for insurers to avoid liability under suicide clauses. The ruling also clarifies and modifies evidentiary rules regarding 'bulk offers' of proof, treating question-and-answer offers as distinct units rather than a single whole, which could impact how counsel structures objections and offers of proof in future trials. The dissent highlights concerns about overturning long-established precedent without fully appreciating the unique contractual and public policy considerations inherent in insurance suicide cases, suggesting potential for further litigation or clarification on these refined standards.
