Opinion
36776.
DECIDED JULY 9, 1957. REHEARING DENIED JULY 23, 1957.
Action on insurance policy. Before Judge Price. Tattnall Superior Court. March 19, 1957.
John P. Rabun, C. L. Cowart, for plaintiff in error.
J. T. Grice, contra.
Where an insurance policy is so drawn as to require interpretation, and it is fairly susceptible to two different constructions, that interpretation which is most favorable to the insured will be adopted.
DECIDED JULY 9, 1957 — REHEARING DENIED JULY 23, 1957.
Mrs. Ruby Parrish Croom filed an action against the Colonial Life Accident Insurance Company on a policy of accident insurance, in which A. H. Croom, Jr., was the insured and the plaintiff was named as beneficiary.
The petition alleged in part that: On March 12th, 1952, the defendant issued its insurance policy, covering accident and death benefits on the life of A. H. Croom, Jr.; the plaintiff was named in said policy as the sole beneficiary and was the sole beneficiary in it at all times from the date of issuance of the policy until the death of the insured; the insured died August 29, 1955; after the death of the insured and within the time required by the policy, the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice of the date of the death of the insured and within a few days thereafter, furnished defendant with proof of death on the forms provided by them; that the defendant has not paid any part of its obligation in any amount to the plaintiff; the defendant is now, based on the policy, due the plaintiff the sum of $2,500, plus interest at 7% per annum, since August 29, 1955; the defendant has failed and refused to pay the plaintiff, in accordance with the policy, and its failure to do so was in bad faith; the defendant is liable for $250 attorney's fees because of its bad faith.
The defendant filed an answer in which it denied liability alleging that the death was caused by suicide which was not covered by the policy.
Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in amount of $2,500 plus interest and attorneys fees of $250. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was denied. The defendant excepts to that ruling.
1. The policy contained the following provision: "The insurance under this policy shall not cover suicide while sane or insane." The policy also contained a provision which provided: "For death covered by the provisions of this policy, where it results from asphyxiation by inhaling any form of gas or vapor, shooting self-inflicted, or poison self-administered, the amount payable shall be one-fifth the amount otherwise payable for accidental death." The last quoted provision of the policy is susceptible to two different constructions. Shooting self-inflicted may mean either the intentional or unintentional shooting of one's self. Peppers v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W., 53 Ga. App. 851, 855 ( 187 S.E. 215). In American Cas. Co. v. Callaway, 75 Ga. App. 799, 803 ( 44 S.E.2d 400) it is stated: "`If any doubt should exist in regard to the construction of the contract of insurance, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured, and the policy should be liberally construed in favor of the validity of the contract and against the insurance company.' Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Durden, 9 Ga. App. 797 (10) ( 72 S.E. 295). This case states the general rule that if the policy is so drawn as to require interpretation, and to be fairly susceptible of two different constructions, the one will be adopted that is most favorable to the insured."
Under the rule above stated the provision in question will be construed, in the present case, to mean shooting intentionally self-inflicted. Under this construction the plaintiff would be entitled to one-fifth of the face value of the policy whether the insured intentionally or unintentionally shot himself. The face value of section two of the policy, under which the plaintiff sued, was $12,500, therefore the verdict for $2,500 and interest was demanded.
It being undisputed that the defendant refused to pay the death claim upon proof of the same being presented by the plaintiff in the manner prescribed by the policy, and that thereafter when suit was filed on the policy the defendant failed to file defensive pleadings which presented any issuable defense to the plaintiff's right of recovery the verdict for attorney's fees was authorized.
Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.