Rousseau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

11 N.E.2d 921, 299 Mass. 91, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 961
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 27, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 11 N.E.2d 921 (Rousseau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rousseau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 11 N.E.2d 921, 299 Mass. 91, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 961 (Mass. 1937).

Opinion

Qua, J.

This is an action to recover the additional death benefits provided in two life insurance policies when death results “solely through external, violent and accidental means.”

Findings of the trial judge establish that the insured and two other young men, after an evening of drinking together, stole an automobile; that the insured drove it to his own home, where he stopped to get some money; that thereafter another of the young men drove the party westerly from Gardner as fast as the automobile would go. The insured fell into a drunken stupor. About five miles east of Greenfield police officers attempted to stop the automobile and then pursued it. About a mile and a half west of Greenfield the. automobile left the road because of its high speed, and the insured was killed.

In our opinion a construction of the policy which would extend the benefits for accidental death to include a case where the death results from the felonious stealing of an automobile (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 266, § 28; c. 274, § 1) and occurs while the crime in which the insured joined is still being committed (Commonwealth v. Rand, 7 Met. 475, 476) and in the course of escape and pursuit from the scene of the original taking, even though the insured himself has succumbed to liquor since that taking, would be contrary to public policy and inconsistent with the principle illustrated with full discussion of authority in the recent case of DeMello v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. 281 Mass. 190. This case does not require further definition of that principle. See also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Goodwin, 166 Va. 119.

There is nothing to the contrary in Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 295 Mass. 1.

[93]*93It is unnecessary to discuss the requests for rulings in detail.

Order for judgment for the defendant affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Davis v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co.
351 N.E.2d 207 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
Hawkeye Security Insurance v. Shields
187 N.W.2d 894 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
Smith v. Combined Insurance Co. of America
120 S.E.2d 267 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1961)
Bowman v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance
83 N.W.2d 434 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1957)
Diamond v. Ganci
103 N.E.2d 716 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1952)
Molloy v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
97 N.E.2d 422 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Lubianez v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
79 N.E.2d 876 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Sanders v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
138 P.2d 239 (Utah Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 N.E.2d 921, 299 Mass. 91, 1937 Mass. LEXIS 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rousseau-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-co-mass-1937.