Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Diane Lee Sigler v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company
Diane Lee Sigler v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 663 F.2d 49 (8th Cir. 1981)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1981-11-02
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- no coverage because injury was self-inflicted
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Diane Lee Sigler v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 32 opinions
SIGLER v. MUTUAL BEN. LIFE INS. CO.,663 F.2d 49(8th Cir. 1981)
DIANE LEE SIGLER, APPELLANT, v. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
APPELLEE.
No. 81-1217.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted October 14, 1981.
Decided November 2, 1981.
David W. Belin, Charles D. Hunter (argued), Ann Marie Williams, Belin, Harris, Helmick Heartney, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.
Before STEPHENSON and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, and LARSON,fn*Senior District Judge.
[2] On cross-motion for summary judgment, the district court1granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying relief on the grounds that the insured's cause of death, autoerotic asphyxia,2was self-inflicted injury resulting in death which under Iowa law was not an accident, "since a reasonable person would have recognized that his actions could result in his death."Sigler v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.,506 F. Supp. 542,544(S.D. Iowa 1981). The district court also held that the death was barred from recovery because of a clause in the insured's policy excluding coverage from "intentionally, self-inflicted injury of any kind."Id.at 545.
[3] The court further found, "Mutual acted in good faith and with reasonable cause in denying plaintiff's claim for benefits under the accidental provision of the insurance certificate."Id.at 546.Page 50
[4] In reviewing the district court's findings, we note that the district court found and appellant's counsel conceded in oral argument that there was no dispute of underlying material facts in the case.
[5] We have carefully considered the briefs, arguments, and record and we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court.3
- The Honorable Earl R. Larson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. ↩
- The Honorable William C. Stuart, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. ↩
- The autoerotic act involved the participant "hanging" himself by the neck, creating an asphyxial state, in an attempt to stimulate nerve centers in the brain and heighten the masturbating experience. ↩
- We note that counsel has requested that we certify this case to the Iowa Supreme Court for a determination of Iowa law on the issue of whether this death was accidental. In light of the well-established Iowa case law on this subject, we see no need to certify the issue.
Also, appellant claims thatInternational Underwriters, Inc.v. Home Ins. Co.,500 F. Supp. 637(E.D.Va. 1980), undermines the district court's decision. We disagree. The present case is easily distinguishable fromInternational Underwritersbecause that case involved the failure of a system of ropes and pulleys designed to protect the insured from death as he engaged in autoerotic acts. ↩