Butler v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co.
225 N.Y. 197, 1919 N.Y. LEXIS 1118, 121 N.E. 758 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of death arising from seven years of continuous absence without being heard from does not apply when circumstances reasonably explain the absence or lack of communication, or when diligent inquiry has not been made, and the burden is on the claimant to prove death is the probable reason for the absence.
Facts:
- In May 1905, Charles E. Butler (insured) resided with his parents and two brothers in Rochester, New York.
- In March 1906, Butler, a 22-year-old machinist, moved to St. Louis, Missouri, and began working as a traveling installer for a telephone company, frequently writing to his mother.
- In April 1907, Butler became an employee of the Western Electric Company in Coffeyville, Kansas, but the duration of this employment is not disclosed.
- After October 1907, Butler's mother and family received no further letters or communications from him, despite previously receiving a letter in September 2007 indicating an intention to seek work as a brakeman and asking for a recommendation, and two postal cards in October 2007 stating he was going 'farther west' to 'Beno, Nevada.'
- Butler's parents did not respond to his September 2007 letter requesting a recommendation or attempt to continue correspondence with him.
- Butler had a bank deposit of about one hundred dollars in his name when he left Rochester, which was later transferred to his mother.
Procedural Posture:
- The beneficiary of Charles E. Butler's life insurance policy brought an action against Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York (defendant) in a trial court to recover the amount of the insurance, relying on the presumption of death due to absence.
- At the trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint at the close of evidence, arguing the plaintiff offered no direct evidence of death, but the trial court denied this request.
- The jury, having been submitted the question of whether the insured's absence was caused by his death, rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, though the decision was not unanimous.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the presumption of death, arising from a person's continuous absence for seven years without being heard from, apply when the available evidence suggests the absentee deliberately ceased communication rather than having died?
Opinions:
Majority - Collin, J.
No, the presumption of death does not apply because the evidence strongly suggests the insured deliberately ceased communication due to his desire for a new life and the breakdown of family ties, rather than his death. The court held that the general presumption of death after seven years of continuous, unexplained absence does not arise when circumstances reasonably account for the person not being heard from. The evidence showed Charles Butler had a fixed intention not to return home, but rather to seek fortune elsewhere (in the west, north, or south) and settle down. His communications indicated a desire for independence, a failure to save money, and a seeking of new opportunities, which led to the 'disintegrating and dissolving' of family ties. His last letter requested a recommendation and implied a deliberate silence until he proved himself not 'a failure,' a resolution that was likely reinforced by his parents' non-response. His final postal cards simply stated he was going 'farther west' without providing details, indicating a deliberate cessation of communication, not an inability to communicate due to death. The court noted that absence from home does not necessarily mean death, especially for a young, healthy, ambitious individual who had a history of moving frequently and deliberately cutting ties. The burden is on the person invoking the presumption to prove death is the probable reason for the absence, and here, the evidence pointed more strongly to a willful absence than to death.
Dissenting - Hiscock, Ch. J., Pound and Andrews, JJ.
The dissenting justices did not provide their reasoning in the excerpted text but indicated disagreement with the majority's conclusion that the evidence did not support the presumption of death, suggesting they believed the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff should have been upheld.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the conditions under which the common law presumption of death, based on a seven-year absence, can be invoked. It emphasizes that mere absence is insufficient; the absence must be unexplained by other reasonable circumstances, and diligent inquiry must be made. The ruling places a higher burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate that death, rather than other factors like a deliberate desire to disappear, is the probable cause of absence. This limits the application of the presumption in situations where an individual's documented intentions or actions prior to disappearance suggest a voluntary withdrawal from communication.
