Response to: “The Case of the Driver Who Had One Too Many”

Though both parties have valid perspectives, I think the estate has the edge in this case.  While it does seem logical that Sam being knowingly intoxicated makes his death less accidental, it is also true that his death was still an accident.  If the insurance company had chosen to argue that he had driven drunk because he wanted to die, then their exception for suicide would have applied.  Their lack of specific exceptions should not give them privileges after the fact.  Death by drunk driving is not a particularly rare way to die in this country so it is not an unlikely exception to be found.

The purpose of a contract is to define conditions for a transaction and a lack of specified conditions is just as important at the time of signing than the presence of others.  It is much more logical for the insurance company to enumerate exceptions to coverage so these situations do not occur, so it is their responsibility to have done so.  In keeping with my opinion, I would rule in favor of the estate.  While the insurance company has an interesting argument, they do not have the contractual footing to deny coverage just because Sam’s accident occurred under conditions, they don’t consider accidental enough.

In a case like this, it would be wrong to withhold the payout from the spouse of the deceased without a clear-cut, contractual justification.  If the insurance payout was benefitting the drunk driver himself, then the driver should be entitled to the same privileges as any other beneficiary, in terms of insurance or pensions, but he should also be held liable by the law.  It would also be entirely appropriate for the insurance company to recoup their payout by dramatically increasing the cost of insurance to the drunk or drugged driver.  Since the drunk driver died, in this case, the fact remains that the spouse is legally entitled to that payout, since in my ruling the contract was not violated.  Insurance often benefits those who were not in the wrong and it should not penalize innocents.