Silverstein v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
1930 N.Y. LEXIS 1007, 254 NY 81, 171 N.E. 914 (1930)
Rule of Law:
An accidental death insurance policy exclusion for death caused by 'disease or bodily infirmity' does not apply to a pre-existing, dormant physical condition that is so remote in its potential mischief that it would not be characterized as a disease in the common speech of men, and which merely predisposed an individual to injury from an otherwise accidental blow.
Facts:
- The defendant insurance company issued a policy insuring the plaintiff's husband against bodily injuries "caused directly and independently of all other causes by accidental means," with benefits payable to the plaintiff in the event of his death.
- The policy excluded coverage for death "caused wholly or partly by disease or bodily or mental infirmity or medical or surgical treatment therefor."
- While lifting a milk can into an icebox, the insured slipped and fell, and the can struck him on the abdomen, causing severe pain.
- A surgeon discovered a perforation at the junction of the insured's stomach and duodenum, through which the contents of his stomach escaped into the peritoneum.
- The escaped contents caused peritonitis, which subsequently led to the insured's death.
- At the site of the perforation, the insured had a duodenal ulcer, approximately the size of a pea, which was dormant, non-progressive, and unknown to him.
- The ulcer, left to itself, would have had no effect on the insured's health, but it had weakened the wall at that point, making it the point of least resistance to the impact of the blow.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, the insured's wife, sued the defendant insurance company in a trial court (e.g., Supreme Court of New York).
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the ulcer was not a 'disease or infirmity' under the policy.
- The defendant insurance company appealed the trial court's judgment to an intermediate appellate court (e.g., Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York).
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The defendant insurance company (appellant) then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York).
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 a pre-existing, dormant duodenal ulcer, unknown to the insured and not independently progressive, constitute a 'disease or bodily infirmity' under an accidental death insurance policy exclusion when it merely weakens a bodily wall, leading to perforation and death following an external accidental blow?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
No, a dormant duodenal ulcer that would have been harmless on its own does not constitute a "disease or infirmity" within the meaning of the accidental death insurance policy exclusion. The court reasoned that for a condition to be considered a "disease or infirmity" under such a policy, it must be so considerable or significant that it would be characterized as such in the common speech of men, rather than a departure from an ideal physical norm detectable only by strict medical or scientific standards. The guide for interpretation is the "reasonable expectation and purpose of the ordinary business man when making an ordinary business contract"; policies are not restricted to cover only perfectly healthy individuals. The court distinguished between a morbid condition that, in its natural development, may be expected to cause mischief, and an abnormal condition that is remote in its potential mischief, which common speech would call a predisposing tendency, not a disease or infirmity. A dormant ulcer, like a pimple or a scratch, falls into the latter category, being merely a "tendency to an infirmity." To interpret the policy otherwise would lead to contradiction and absurdity, as the infinite interplay of causes would make it impossible to segregate a single cause, thereby frustrating the parties' intent. The court affirmed that the triers of fact could reasonably find the ulcer was not a disease within the policy's meaning, as it was harmless unless aggravated by catastrophic causes.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for interpreting insurance contracts, particularly concerning exclusions for pre-existing conditions in accidental injury or death policies. It establishes a layperson's 'common speech of men' standard for defining 'disease or infirmity,' shifting away from a strict medical or scientific definition. This approach prevents insurers from denying claims based on minor, dormant conditions that are merely predispositions and only become problematic due to an independent, accidental event, thereby broadening coverage for insureds. The decision underscores the principle that insurance policies should be interpreted according to the reasonable expectations of ordinary business people, influencing subsequent cases regarding policy construction and causation in insurance law.
