## Facts

- Ernest and Norma Bill were beneficiaries of a life insurance policy on their 17-year-old son, LeRoy Leo Bill, issued by Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company.
- LeRoy worked as a farmhand and was described as healthy, content, and making future plans; he had no known financial or personal troubles.
- LeRoy was found dead, hanging in a barn with binder twine around his neck; death was by asphyxiation.
- The beneficiaries claimed death was accidental, consistent with LeRoy’s habit of testing his strength or performing stunts.
- The insurer denied liability, asserting the policy’s suicide exclusion applied.
- At trial, the court excluded a medical examiner’s testimony that Ernest Bill, when asked whether he doubted his son committed suicide, responded with a side-to-side head shake.
- The jury returned a verdict for the beneficiaries; the insurer appealed.

## Issues

1. In a civil life insurance case asserting suicide as an affirmative defense, may the jury be instructed that the insurer must “exclude every other reasonable hypothesis” to prove suicide by circumstantial evidence?
2. Was it error to exclude testimony about a beneficiary’s nonverbal head gesture in response to a question suggesting suicide, on the ground the gesture was ambiguous?
3. Did the evidence require a directed verdict for the insurer on the suicide defense as a matter of law?

## Decision

- The judgment for the beneficiaries was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the insurer had to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis; that instruction imposed an excessive, criminal-like burden inconsistent with civil proof standards.
- The trial court erred by excluding the medical examiner’s testimony about Ernest Bill’s head gesture; the evidence was relevant and the jury should decide its meaning and weight.
- The insurer was not entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence could support either suicide or accidental death.

## Legal Principles

- Suicide is an affirmative defense in life insurance litigation, and the insurer bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence, whether proof is direct or circumstantial.
- The presumption against suicide is rebuttable and assists the factfinder when evidence is uncertain, but it cannot replace evidence or impose an extraordinary burden of persuasion.
- In civil cases, circumstantial evidence need not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis; it must make the asserted fact more probable than not under the preponderance standard.
- Relevant nonverbal conduct that may constitute an admission is generally admissible; ambiguity ordinarily affects weight, not admissibility, and is for the jury to evaluate.
- When reasonable minds could find either suicide or accident on the record, the issue is for the jury rather than resolution by directed verdict.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed to require the insurer to disprove all other reasonable explanations and because relevant admission-type gesture evidence was excluded, even though the ultimate question of suicide versus accident remained for the jury on a properly instructed record.


Bill v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 119 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 1963)