Stamp v. Metropolitan Life, No. 07-1061. This case is one of a line of disturbing cases that hold that people that die in drunk driving accidents for purposes of his Accidental Death and Dismemberment ("AD&D") life insurance policies. The First says that it is “Carefully” considering the issue, but really, it is not. The context is an ERISA case, where it is reviewing the plan administrator’s determination.
Anyway, this seems like a decision made out of political fear. Applying Wickman v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins., 908 F.3d 1077, 1084 (1st Cir. 1990), The First says that people that drink and drive are so aware (i.e. reasonably foresee) of the risks of drinking and driving that they know how dangerous it is, and therefore, anything that results isn’t an accident. Then they cherry-pick dicta about drinking and driving. Whatever.
Torruella dissents, and gives a nice point-by point rebuttal. However, I am just too angry at the majority. Maybe this is something that should go en banc. Maybe we should stop pretending that people that drive drunk intend to kill themselves, but are merely not thinking.
A judge in West Virginia did a good analysis of the statistics a couple years ago, using MADD's own numbers to show that no reasonable administrator could rule that driving over the limit was suicide, and was reversed on appeal. We're talking about the difference between a one in a million chance of dying on a normal car trip, one in 100,000 if you are not drunk but have an illegal blood alcohol level, and one in 10,000 if you are actually drunk.
Posted by: JFC | July 04, 2008 at 04:24 PM