## Facts

- Washington National Insurance Company issued Robert Willden an accident and disability policy in 1965.
- Willden was injured in an automobile accident in February 1966 and experienced progressive neurological symptoms; he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in October 1966.
- The policy provided up to 60 months of benefits for accidental injury that “totally and continuously” disabled the insured “within thirty days” of the accident, preventing performance of all occupational duties, and provided one year of benefits for total disability caused by sickness.
- Willden was unemployed from April 1966 to April 1967, then worked as a licensed real estate and business opportunity broker until 1972; he later deteriorated and was unable to engage in gainful employment from 1972 to May 1, 1973.
- The insurer paid one year of sickness benefits ending April 21, 1967, and denied further accident disability benefits.
- Willden sued for accident disability benefits accruing after April 21, 1967, presenting expert testimony that the accident precipitated his multiple sclerosis.
- The jury returned special verdicts finding (1) the accident caused the disability, but (2) Willden was not totally disabled within the policy’s required period and, more specifically, was not totally disabled between April 21, 1967, and February 25, 1969, though he was totally disabled thereafter.
- The trial court entered judgment for the insurer; the California Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a policy requiring total and continuous disability “within thirty days” of an accident is satisfied when an accident allegedly triggers a progressively developing condition that becomes totally disabling later.
2. Whether the 30-day total-disability requirement is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable when applied to a progressive condition allegedly precipitated by trauma.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Washington National Insurance Company.
- The Court held the insured did not satisfy the contractual condition that total and continuous disability occur within 30 days of the accident, as determined by the jury.
- The Court rejected the claim that the 30-day provision was unconscionable, holding it enforceable when interpreted under California’s “process of nature” rule.

## Legal Principles

- Accident disability policies may condition extended benefits on total and continuous disability occurring within a specified time after an accident.
- Under California’s “process of nature” rule, timing requirements (e.g., “immediate” disability or disability within a stated period) may be satisfied if the accident initiates a natural, continuous progression culminating in disability, even if full disability manifests later.
- Causation by accident and satisfaction of a temporal/degree-of-disability condition are distinct requirements; proof of causation alone does not establish coverage if the policy also requires disability to reach totality within a defined period.
- A jury’s special verdict resolving the factual question whether the insured became totally disabled within the contractual period will control absent reversible legal error.
- A short temporal limitation on when total disability must occur is not unconscionable per se where courts apply an established interpretive rule that avoids a rigid, instantaneous-disability reading.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the policy’s 30-day total-and-continuous disability condition and affirmed denial of accident benefits because, although the jury found the accident caused the eventual disability, it also found Willden did not become totally disabled within the required period, and the timing provision was not unconscionable under California law.


Willden v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 18 Cal. 3d 631 (Cal. 1976)