Legal Opinion · Dissent

Searle v. Allstate Life Insurance

California Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1985No. L.A. 31703Published

1DissentMosk, J.

I dissent.

Three significant questions are raised by the major issue in this case—the meaning and effect of the standard suicide exclusion clause in life insurance policies. They are: (1) whether the clause is ambiguous; (2) what the phrase “suicide, sane or insane” means; and (3) which party bears the burden of proving suicide. The majority correctly answer the first and third questions. Their answer to the second question, however, is wrong: not only is it contrary to the plain meaning of the clause and against the great weight of authority, but it also reintroduces and indeed exacerbates…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Bigelow v. Berkshire Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Spruill v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  3. Zuckerman v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Smith v. Westland Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  5. De Gogorza v. . Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API