"Commission of a Felony" Enforceable to Deny Claim for Accidental Death Benefits Resulting from Drunken Driving. (Recent Court Decision)
内华达州最高法院判决，酒后驾驶致人死亡属于保单中“实施重罪”的除外责任，保险公司可拒绝赔付意外死亡保险金。
McDaniel v. Sierra Health and Life Insurance Co., 53 P.3d 904 (Nevada Supreme Court--September 18, 2002) An accident insurer fared considerably better in Nevada than did General Electric Assurance in the Pelkey case discussed above. David Dawson bought an accidental death benefit policy from Sierra Health and Life. Driving while intoxicated, Dawson failed to negotiate a left turn, allowing his vehicle to drift right, causing it to strike a guardrail and flip over, thereby killing himself and injuring [Lyndale] McDaniel, his passenger. 53 P.3d at 905 (footnote omitted). McDaniel, who was also the named beneficiary of Dawson's accidental death policy, sued when Sierra Health refused to pay, citing the following exclusion: loss that is directly or indirectly a result of one of the following is not a Covered Loss even though it was caused by an accidental bodily injury... (6) An attempt to commit, or committing, an assault or felony by the insured. 53 P.3d at 906. California law applied to the characterization of Dawson's actions, since the accident took place in California. Under California law, driving while intoxicated is considered a felony if it proximately causes bodily injury to another. Consequently, Dawson's drunken driving was a felony. See 53 P.3d at 905, n. 1. The same result would obtain under Nevada criminal law. See 93 P.3d at 907. McDaniel argued that the exclusion was ambiguous as applied to Dawson's death, since it was not established that Dawson intended to commit a felony or even intended to become intoxicated. The Nevada Supreme Court was not persuaded. It found the exclusionary language sufficiently clear that it would not accord McDaniel the benefit of the ambiguity rule, construing doubtful language against the insurer that drafted the policy at issue. See 53 P.3d at 906. The McDaniel Court distinguished LDS Hospital v. Capitol Life Insurance Co., 765 P.2d 857 (Utah 1988), which found for the claimant, because the exclusionary language in that case involved only intentional conduct, not criminal conduct. In addition, the Nevada Supreme Court observed that attitudes toward drunken driving had changed during the 15 years since that decision. Although the Utah Supreme Court may have been correct that incidents involving drunken driving were commonly regarded as accidents in 1988, when it decided LDS Hospital, courts today do not accept that conclusion. Drunken driving is now widely recognized as criminal conduct that is too reckless to be characterized as an accident. …