Schelberger v. Eastern Savings Bank, 60 N.Y.2d 569 (1983)

In an action to recover life insurance proceeds, a presumption exists against suicide, and a finding of suicide is warranted only if the jury is satisfied that no conclusion other than suicide may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over life insurance proceeds where the insurer claimed the insured committed suicide within the policy’s two-year suicide clause. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the beneficiary, reiterating the enduring presumption against suicide in such cases. The court held that the insurer failed to prove conclusively that the insured’s death was a suicide, emphasizing that the evidence presented allowed for other reasonable conclusions. The court upheld the jury instruction regarding the presumption against suicide and declined to alter existing state law on the matter, finding no compelling reason to do so.

Facts

Edward Schelberger was insured under a life insurance policy issued by Eastern Savings Bank on May 1, 1978, with his wife as the beneficiary. The policy included a standard clause limiting liability to premiums paid if the insured died by suicide within two years of the policy’s issue date. Schelberger died on December 25, 1979, within this two-year period, from an overdose of Tuinal, a barbiturate. The insurer denied the beneficiary’s claim for the policy’s face amount, alleging suicide, and tendered only the premiums paid.

Procedural History

The beneficiary sued to recover the policy proceeds. The trial court denied the insurer’s motion for a directed verdict. The jury found in favor of the beneficiary. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted review and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the presumption against suicide in a life insurance claim.

Whether the insurer was entitled to a directed verdict based on the evidence presented, arguing the death was conclusively a suicide.

Holding

Yes, the trial court’s instruction regarding the presumption against suicide was proper because it accurately reflected New York law.

No, the insurer was not entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence did not conclusively establish suicide, allowing for other reasonable inferences about the cause of death.

Court’s Reasoning

The court held that the jury instruction correctly stated New York law, citing Begley v. Prudential Ins. Co., 1 N.Y.2d 530. The court reaffirmed the presumption against suicide, noting it “springs from strong policy considerations as well as embodying natural probability.” The court rejected the insurer’s argument to modify the law, stating that neither statistical data nor the decriminalization of suicide warranted a change. The court also pointed out that the legislature was considering the issue of presumptions in the Proposed Code of Evidence, suggesting that any changes should come from the legislature, if at all.

Regarding the directed verdict, the court emphasized that a finding of suicide is warranted only if “no conclusion other than suicide, may reasonably be drawn.” The court found that the evidence did not compel such a conclusion. While the insured died from a drug overdose, evidence showed he was a frequent user of the drug, and his prior overdose recovery suggested the possibility of accidental overdose rather than intentional self-destruction. The court also noted the absence of a suicide note, financial troubles, or any debilitating physical condition. A neighbor’s testimony indicated the insured appeared happy and friendly shortly before his death, further undermining the claim of suicide. The court stated that autopsy and death certificates listing suicide were merely the opinion of the physician and not conclusive evidence.

The court concluded that the question of whether the death was a suicide was properly submitted to the jury, and there was no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict in favor of the beneficiary. The court briefly addressed the insurer’s claims of trial errors, finding none warranted reversal.