Jorita Padfield v. Aig Life Insurance Company, a Corporation

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 5447·290 F.3d 1121·2002 WL 1000746·27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2737·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4266
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 17, 200200-57054California12,646 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

This suit for recovery of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., arises from the death of appellant’s husband as a result of autoerotic asphyxiation. The insurer refused to pay benefits under an accidental injury and death insurance policy governed by ERISA. The district court held that the death was caused by an intentionally self-inflicted injury, and thus was not covered by the policy. We reverse.

I. Facts

The relevant facts are not in dispute. On the evening of February 9, 1999, Gerald Alan Padfield told his wife he was going to the cleaners and drove away from his home in the family’s van. He never returned. Three days later, a California Highway Patrol trooper noticed the van parked on an empty street next to a vacant lot. When he approached the van, he discovered Mr. Padfield dead on the backseat floor. According to the coroner’s report, Mr. Padfield was found sitting in an upright position behind the front passenger seat with his back against the sliding door. He was naked from the waist down. One end of a necktie was tied around his neck. The other end was tied to the sliding door hinge, which was located…

Concurrence in Part

Leavy, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion in Part IV(A) that Mr. Padfield’s death was not a “suicide” within the meaning of the policy. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in Part IV(B) that the injuries resulting in Mr. Padfield’s death were not “intentionally self-inflicted.” I would hold, as a matter of law, that Mr. Padfield’s act of tying a necktie around his neck with the intent to restrict the flow of oxygen to his brain was an intentionally self-inflicted injury which resulted in his death. The policy excludes coverage for such a loss.

A. The Policy Terms

The policy provides coverage as follows: “If Injury to the Insured Person results in death within 365 days of the date of the accident that caused the Injury, the Company will pay 100% of the Principal Sum.” The policy defines “injury” as “bodily injury caused by an accident.” The policy excludes coverage for “any loss caused in whole or in part by, or resulting in whole or in part from the following:”... “any intentionally self-inflicted injury or any attempt at intentionally self-inflicted injury.”

An intentionally self-inflicted injury has three elements: (1) an…

Opinion

290 F.3d 1121 Jorita PADFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-57054. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 6, 2001. Filed May 17, 2002. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Charles J. Fleishman, Beverly Hills, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant. Huey P. Cotton and Rickee S. Stewart, Cozen & Cotton, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-04612-SVW. Before: LEAVY, T.G. NELSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge. 1 This suit for recovery of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., arises from the death of appellant's husband as a result of autoerotic asphyxiation. The insurer refused to pay benefits under an accidental injury and death insurance policy governed by ERISA. The district court held that the death was caused by an intentionally self-inflicted injury, and thus was not covered by the policy. We reverse. I. Facts 2 The relevant facts are not in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.