The insurance company refused to pay for suicide
Life, as always, is more diverse than the rules of law. Recently, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had to understand what suicide is. Justin Caldwell insured his life under two insurance policies, each of which provided a payment of $1 million in the event of death. However, the policies included a clause: death should not occur as a result of suicide.
At some point, against the backdrop of a deteriorating relationship with his wife and the threat of divorce, Mr. Caldwell decided to commit suicide, for which he chose a method called “suicide-by-cop” / suicide by police officer. The meaning of the action is that the person does not kill himself, but forces the policeman to shoot. In accordance with his plan, Mr. Caldwell called the police and reported his desire to kill himself. The arriving police, of course, did not want to kill Caldwell and shot him with rubber bullets, but he pulled out a gun, after which the police used firearms.
As a result, a dispute broke out between the recipients of the payment and the insurance company, which had to be resolved by the court: the insurance company considered that there was suicide, so it refused to pay, and the recipients of the payments insisted that suicide implies that a person killed himself, and the murder of one person cannot be considered suicide to others.
The court of first instance sided with the recipients of the payments, agreeing with their interpretation of the word. But the appeal did not agree with this: using dictionaries, judicial practice and the will of the parties expressed in the contract, the trio of judges decided that suicide-by-cop is a private type of suicide, and, therefore, payments for Caldwell’s death are not due.
Author: Igor Slabykh
