This case involved an insurance company's suit to cancel a life insurance policy with a disability benefit after the insured intentionally shot off both hands with a shotgun to collect monthly payments. The court decided to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the insurer was not entitled to cancel the policy. The core reasoning relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents holding that suicide or self-inflicted injury does not void an insurance policy unless the contract explicitly provides for it or state law declares such acts contrary to public policy, neither of which applied here since self-mutilation was neither criminal nor against public policy in the relevant state. The policy's incontestable clause, effective after one year, further barred any challenge to the policy's validity on these grounds, and the contract's specific exclusions did not cover self-inflicted disability.

business & regulatory

This case involved a longshoreman injured while crossing a gangplank onto a ship moored in Portland to load cargo, who alleged that the ship's officers negligently failed to secure the plank with cleats or lashings, causing it to slip and injure him. The claimant filed exceptions arguing the tort was outside admiralty court jurisdiction. The court allowed the exceptions and dismissed the case, holding that admiralty jurisdiction over torts depends on the locus of the injury and that the gangplank functioned as an extension of the land until the worker was fully separated from the shore and on the ship. The core reasoning was that the injury occurred while the plaintiff remained on land, so the cause of action arose outside admiralty territory, distinguishing the facts from cases where the worker fell entirely onto the water.

torts & liabilityprocedure