Death from autoerotic asphyxiation is "intentional self-injury" within meaning of life insurance policy's exclusion clause

Law Reporter, Dec 2003

INSURANCE

MAMSI Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Callaway, 825 A.2d 995 (Md. 2003).

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that where an insured died while engaging in autocratic asphyxiation, the death was caused by "intentional self-injury" within the meaning of a coverage exclusion provision in his life insurance policy.

The state high court said that when, as here, the insured did not intend to cause his death, then the question for the court is whether the insured intended to cause the injury that led to his death. Here, the court must inquire whether asphyxiation is an "injury" within the policy terms. The court noted that in the vast majority of cases from other jurisdictions that have considered the issue of death by autoerotic asphyxiation, the courts have found it to be the result of an intentional self-inflicted injury and have denied payment of benefits on the basis of the self-injury exclusion in the insurance policy.

Here, if another person had partially strangled the insured, there would be no argument about whether the strangulation was an injury, the court reasoned. The temporary deprivation of oxygen to the brain is a harm-albeit a temporary one in most autocratic asphyxiation episodes. By depriving his brain of oxygen, the insured injured his brain, leading to his death.

Comment: In Posovac v. Continental Cas. Co., Fla., Palm Beach County 15th Jud. Cir. Ct., No. CA 01-06083 AI, Sept. 12, 2002, the policyholder was found dead of multiple blunt trauma injuries in a multistory parking garage. His wife, as the beneficiary, made a claim under the life insurance policy, asserting a fall caused his death. The insurer denied the claim, contending that the policyholder committed suicide by jumping. The beneficiary sued the insurer, alleging breach of contract. After weighing the circumstantial evidence, th court found in favor of plaintiff. *David Zappitell, Boca Raton, Fla., represented plaintiff in this case.

For a result contrary to MAMSI in a case in which the policyholder died while engaging in autocratic asphyxiation, see Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2002), 45 ATLA L. Rep. 252 (Sept. 2002), cert, denied, AIG Life Ins. Co v. Padfield, 537 U.S. 1067 (2002). There, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the policyholder's death was neither "suicide" nor "intentionally self-inflicted injury" within the meanings of the policy exclusion. Charles J. Fleishman, Beverly Hills, CaL, represented plaintiff in the Padfield case.

Finally, in Doe v. Cigna, Ins. Co., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 245 (Aug. 1996), a salesman died of autocratic asphyxiation in his hotel room during a business trip. His wife's claim under his business travel policy was initially denied under a "personal deviation" exclusion, but the insurer ultimately settled with her for the policy limits plus interest. *Michael P. Rainboth, Portsmouth, N.H., represented claimant. Documents in Doe are available through the Court Document Sets section in the back of this issue, courtesy of claimant's counsel.