Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Of the cases in which the distinction between accidental result/ death and accidental means was sought to be done away with a fine example is to be found in the U S Supreme Court decision in Landress vs Phoenix Mut. L Ins. Co (1993) 291 U S 491. In Landress the judicial view that there was no distinction between accidental death and accidental means found one of its most forceful expressions in the dissenting opinion of Cordozo, J.

Landress was a case of death by sunstroke. The insured while playing golf one day, fatally succumbed to the heat. His beneficiary claimed compensation under the Insurance policy on the ground that the layman regarded death from sunstroke as accidental death. The majority decision of the Court rejected the claim and held that the claimant must demonstrate something unforeseen or unexpected in the act itself: For here the carefully chosen words defining liability distinct between the result and external means which produces it. The insurance is not against any accidental result.

Policies of liability insurance as well as property and personal injury insurance frequently limit coverage to losses that are caused by accident. In attempting to accommodate the laymans understanding of the term, Courts have broadly defined the word to mean an occurrence which is unforeseen, unexpected, extraordinary, either by virtue of the fact that it occurred at all, or because of the extent of the damage. An accident can be either a sudden happening or a slowly evolving process like the percolation of harmful substance through the ground. Qualification of a particular incident as an accident seems to depend on two criteria: the degree of forseeability, and (2), the state of mind of the actor in intending or not intending the result. John F Dobbyan, Insurance Law in a Nutshell 128 (3d ed.