## Facts

- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. issued a life insurance policy on Donald Hinds that promised $9,000 upon death and an additional $9,000 if death resulted solely from “violent, external and accidental means.”
- David C. Hinds, Donald’s minor son, was the named beneficiary. The action was brought on David’s behalf by his guardian (his mother, Donald’s wife).
- Donald was found late at night in his kitchen, slumped unconscious at the kitchen table. He was taken to a hospital and died without regaining consciousness.
- The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the right temple. Evidence indicated the revolver was in contact with the skin when it fired.
- The bullet traveled approximately horizontally through Donald’s head from right to left.
- A revolver and an opened package of bullets were on the table at Donald’s right side.
- There were no visible signs of a struggle, quarrel, or disturbance in the home.
- Empty whiskey bottles were near Donald’s body, and a post-mortem blood test (stipulated at trial) showed a blood alcohol content of 0.267% by weight.
- A medical witness testified that a person at that level would be confused, with slowed reactions and reduced pain sensation, not unconscious, and still physically capable of acting.
- Friends and associates testified that they knew of no reason Donald would want to take his own life.
- At trial, the plaintiff presented no direct evidence explaining how the shooting could have occurred accidentally and relied largely on the presumption against suicide.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $18,000 (basic benefit plus the accidental-death benefit), and the insurer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury finding that Donald Hinds’s death was caused by “violent, external and accidental means” so as to trigger the policy’s additional $9,000 benefit.
2. Whether the plaintiff could satisfy the burden of proving accidental death primarily through the presumption against suicide after the insurer introduced substantial circumstantial evidence consistent with suicide.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine set aside the verdict awarding the double-indemnity recovery.
- The court held that the beneficiary did not meet the burden of proving that death resulted from accidental means within the policy language.
- The court ruled that the presumption against suicide could not substitute for proof of accident once evidence was introduced from which suicide was at least as likely as accident, and the record supplied no reasonable, evidence-based explanation of an accidental contact shot to the temple.

## Legal Principles

- A beneficiary seeking accidental-death (double-indemnity) benefits bears the burden of proving that death resulted from “violent, external and accidental means” as defined by the policy.
- The presumption against suicide is an evidentiary presumption that aids the party with the burden only in the absence of substantial contrary evidence; it does not remain as independent proof after the opposing party produces strong evidence pointing to suicide.
- Proof that death was violent and external (such as a gunshot wound) does not by itself establish that it was accidental; the evidence must reasonably support accident rather than intentional self-destruction.
- Evidence tending to show no apparent motive for suicide may be considered, but it does not overcome physical and circumstantial evidence that makes suicide as probable as accident, especially where the plaintiff offers no affirmative account of accidental discharge consistent with the scene and wound characteristics.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff offered no affirmative evidence showing how the revolver discharged by accident and relied mainly on the presumption against suicide, and because the physical and surrounding circumstances supported an intentional self-inflicted contact wound at least as strongly as any accidental theory, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court set aside the double-indemnity verdict for failure of proof on accidental means.


Hinds v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 155 A.2d 721 (1959)