Bodily Injury and Property Damage from Suicide Attempt Is Not Covered
February 6, 2017
Insured brought an action against an auto insurer for denying personal injury protection and property damage claims after insured rolled her car into a canyon in a suicide attempt. This case is Heslop v. Bear River Mutual Ins. Co., 2017 UT 5.
On October 5, 2014 the insured overdosed on prescription Ambien and Lexapro in a suicide attempt. The next day the insured decided to drive through Ogden Canyon to “look at the leaves” and subsequently unbuckled her seatbelt and rolled her truck down an embankment. She suffered numerous injuries that necessitated serious treatment such as a skin graft and several stitches, and suffered a hairline fracture to her C7 vertebrae.
When on the phone with an adjuster the insured told the adjuster that the crash was “pretty much a suicide attempt.” When the adjuster asked specifically if the crash was a suicide attempt, the insured responded positively two times. The insured said that the police, her family, and the doctors who took care of her after the crash all knew that it was a suicide attempt. When the adjuster asked why she attempted suicide she responded that it was a bad reaction to the medication she was on, and that without the medication she was on being right, her mind just wasn't right. She blamed her medications for the suicide attempt. The insurance policy in place only covered “accidental loss of or damage to a covered car” and the intentional injury exclusion did not cover “any injured person, if the person's conduct contributed to his injury . . . by intentionally causing injury to himself.” Ten days after the conversation with the insurance adjuster, the insured received a letter from the insurer denying coverage.
The insured had her psychiatrist write the insurer a letter stating that the crash could have been caused by an agitated delirium caused by serotonin syndrome, a side effect of her suicide attempt the day before. The psychiatrist explained that the delirium caused irrational behavior that included driving her car off of the road. A letter from another doctor spoke directly to the effects of Ambien on the insured the day of the crash, after she had overdosed.
In court the insured alleged breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court considered the mental disease when determining whether injuries were accidental or intentional. The Supreme Court added that the insured did not provide enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the questions of whether the insured could appreciate the consequences of her actions and whether she could control her actions in light of their likely consequences. The Supreme Court also stated that the letters from the doctors did not support the conclusion that the insured failed to appreciate the consequences of her conduct. The court found instead that the evidence “firmly” established that the insured had understood that the consequences of driving off the road would naturally and probably be death or injury.
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court of Utah had to consider the insureds state of mind at the time of the accident, and determine whether or not the insured could fully comprehend the risks involved with driving her car off of a canyon. Because the insured had attempted suicide and failed 24 hours earlier, and admitted to several different individuals that the crash was a suicide attempt, the court found that the insured could appreciate the consequences of driving her truck down the embankment and that the injuries resulting were not “accidental” and were excluded from coverage under the intentional injury exclusion provision in her automobile insurance policy.