## Facts

- Mrs. O’Brien was the beneficiary under her husband’s life insurance policy issued by Equitable Life Assurance Society, which included an accidental-death (double indemnity) provision.
- Equitable paid the policy’s basic $10,000 death benefit, but denied the additional $10,000 double-indemnity benefit.
- The double-indemnity provision required proof that death resulted “directly and independently of all other causes by external, violent and purely accidental means,” and stated that no additional benefit would be paid if death resulted from, or was caused by, “committing or attempting to commit an assault or felony.”
- The insured died from a gunshot wound at the home of Robert and Virginia Jackson; no one else witnessed the events surrounding the shooting.
- At trial, the plaintiff’s initial proof was limited to the existence of the policy and that the insured suffered a violent death by gunshot; she relied on Missouri’s presumption that a violent, unexplained death is accidental to establish her prima facie case.
- Equitable then presented testimony from the Jacksons supporting its theory that the insured was shot while committing an assault or felony (including evidence that he was found in circumstances suggesting a sexual assault or related criminal conduct).
- In response, the plaintiff primarily attacked the Jacksons’ credibility and suggested an alternative explanation (including inferences that robbery could have been the motive), but did not offer substantial affirmative evidence contradicting Equitable’s account.
- The district court granted Equitable’s renewed motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, concluding that the presumption could not carry the case once Equitable produced substantial contrary proof.
- Mrs. O’Brien appealed, arguing that her prima facie case based on the presumption required submission to the jury.

## Issues

1. Under Missouri law, does the presumption that a violent, unexplained death is accidental permit a beneficiary’s case to go to the jury after the insurer introduces substantial evidence that the insured was killed while committing or attempting to commit an assault or felony?
2. Was a directed verdict proper where the beneficiary offered no substantial affirmative evidence of accidental death once the insurer’s evidence rebutted the presumption?

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the directed verdict for Equitable.
- The court held that, under Missouri law, the presumption of accidental death from violent death is a procedural presumption and not evidence.
- Once Equitable introduced substantial evidence that the insured was killed while committing or attempting to commit an assault or felony, the presumption disappeared and could not be weighed by the jury.
- With the presumption gone, the plaintiff failed to produce substantial evidence that the death was “purely accidental” within the policy’s coverage, so there was no jury question.

## Legal Principles

- Under Missouri law, proof of a violent, unexplained death gives rise to a presumption that death was accidental, sufficient to satisfy the beneficiary’s initial burden of production and make a prima facie case.
- The Missouri presumption is not evidence; it operates only until the opposing party introduces substantial evidence to the contrary, at which point the presumption drops from the case.
- “Substantial evidence” is evidence that reasonable minds could accept as adequate to support the conclusion asserted; when such evidence contradicts the presumed fact, the presumption no longer affects the decision.
- After the presumption is rebutted, the beneficiary must come forward with substantial affirmative proof that the insured’s death was caused by “external, violent and purely accidental means” and was not within disqualifying conduct described in the policy.
- Credibility attacks, conjecture, and unsupported alternative theories do not supply the substantial proof needed to avoid a directed verdict once the presumption has been rebutted.
- A directed verdict is proper when, on the full record, the party with the burden on coverage lacks substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find accidental death within the policy terms.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the insurer because Missouri’s presumption of accidental death from a violent death vanished after Equitable introduced substantial evidence that the insured was killed while committing or attempting to commit an assault or felony, and the beneficiary offered no substantial affirmative evidence to show the death was purely accidental and covered by the double-indemnity provision.


O'Brien v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y, 212 F.2d 383 (1954)