Summary
In Independent Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Causby, 94 Ga. App. 305, 94 S.E.2d 388, the plaintiff affirmatively alleged that chronic rheumatoid arthritis contributed to the death of the insured but was not the disease or condition directly causing the insured's death.
Summary of this case from Skillman v. Insurance Co.Opinion
36219.
DECIDED JULY 5, 1956. REHEARING DENIED JULY 17, 1956.
Action on life policy; double indemnity. Before Judge Paschall. Gordon Superior Court. March 16, 1956.
Matthews, Maddox, Walton Smith, for plaintiff in error.
John D. Edge, contra.
The trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
DECIDED JULY 5, 1956 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 17, 1956.
Mrs. Maude L. Causby filed an action against Independent Life Accident Insurance Company to recover the benefits of a life insurance policy which had been issued, with a double-indemnity provision, to her husband who had now died. The policy provided for extra benefits for death of the insured resulting directly, and independently from all other causes, from bodily injuries effected solely through external, violent and accidental means. The petition alleged that the plaintiff was the beneficiary under the policy; that her husband died from injuries caused by a fall in his home; that the fall caused a concussion resulting in a cerebral hemorrhage; and that a "copy of the proof of death with the cause thereof is hereto attached marked Exhibit `B' and made a part of the pleadings herein."
General and special demurrers to the petition were filed by the defendant. The court overruled all demurrers, and the exception here is to that ruling.
The defendant contends that the pleadings show that the death was not caused directly, and independently of all other causes, from bodily injury effected solely through external, accidental means, but from a physical impairment which would bring the cause of death within one of the exceptions under the policy. Under the provisions of the policy, if the physical impairment of the deceased contributed to the fall in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, then there could be no recovery; but if the physical impairment did not contribute to the fall but merely aggravated the consequences of the accident, recovery would not be barred. Thornton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 121, 124 ( 42 S.E. 287, 94 Am. St. R. 99); Harris v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 66 Ga. App. 761 ( 19 S.E.2d 199); Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Scott, 91 Ga. App. 311, 316 ( 85 S.E.2d 452).
There was attached to the petition as Exhibit "B" a certificate of death which the plaintiff alleged was proof of the cause of her husband's death. It contained the following clause: "22. Cause of death. I. Disease or condition directly leading to death (a) Cerebral hemorrhage injury to head caused, due to (b), by fall. Antecedent causes. Morbid conditions, if any, giving rise to the above cause (a) stating the underlying cause last. Due to (c) chronic rheumatoid arthritis."
This court is constrained to hold that the plaintiff affirmatively alleged that chronic rheumatoid arthritis contributed to the death of the insured but was not the disease or condition directly causing his death. The only inference this court can draw from the above-quoted portion of the death certificate is that chronic rheumatoid arthritis is what caused the insured to fall and that the fall in turn caused a cerebral hemorrhage which resulted in his death. Rheumatoid arthritis being a physical infirmity which contributed directly to the fall which resulted in the insured's death, there could be no recovery under the double-indemnity clause of the policy issued him. The trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
Judgment reversed. Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.