![]() The Ninth Circuit first dispensed with the suicide exclusion by applying a dual subjective and objective inquiry, holding that the decedent had a subjective expectation of survival, and that this expectation was objectively reasonable since death was not “substantially likely” to result from the conduct. Padfield claimed benefits from her husband’s death insurance policy, AIG invoked exceptions in the policy that denied recovery for death resulting from suicide or intentionally self-inflicted injury. The coroner’s report stated that the death was the accidental result of autoerotic asphyxiation. In Padfield, the plaintiff’s husband was found dead in the back of a van, hung by a necktie, and surrounded by pornographic materials. This section will discussion each case in chronological order. of Am., have held that the insurance policy exclusions for intentionally self-inflicted injuries did not apply to deaths to by autoerotic asphyxiation. The Seventh Circuit recently disagreed in Tran v. Co., and the Second Circuit, in Critchlow v. ![]() Three circuit courts have confronted insurance benefits covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), a federal statute that governs health insurance policies. Part II of this article reviews the three cases that comprise the current circuit split. Part III discusses the correct interpretation of autoerotic asphyxiation under accidental death insurance policies, determining that it does not constitute an intentionally self-inflicted injury. In these cases, it is exceedingly important to disentangle the legal questions from their factual underpinnings, and to frame those questions without prejudice. Not only do these cases present unique factual situations that strain the concepts of accident and injury, judges may also have difficulty empathizing with them. Accidental deaths are typically the sort of case that may tug at a judge’s heartstrings, but to most judges, the practice of autoerotic asphyxiation probably appears depraved and utterly foreign. ![]() Autoerotic asphyxiation is “the practice of temporarily depriving oneself of oxygen while masturbating in order to increase sexual sensation.” Those engaging in the activity do not expect to die, but the failure to restore oxygen flow can result in death-a death that may be regarded as accidental. But the decedents undeniably place themselves at risk, and some courts have held that despite the death being unintentional, insurance recovery is barred by the exception for intentionally self-inflicted injuries. Life insurance policies provide some measure of solace and stability to grieving families, but the collection on these policies is not always assured. Accidental death insurance sometimes contains an exception for “intentionally self-inflicted injuries.” Federal circuit courts have recently split on the applicability of this exception in instances where death resulted from autoerotic asphyxiation. Zachery Hullinger, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |