Essay: Case analysis

This case is the outcome of the appeal from a decision pronounced by the Court of Appeal. Case essentially involves a person named Major Rowlandson who in 1925 took out 5 policies on his own life with the company called Royal Insurance Com. Ltd for the sum amounting to 50,000. The Terms & Condition of each policy contained a clause which says. Since 1925 he was maintaining all these five policies and was paying the premium of around 1800 per annum.
Subsequently he became insolvent in 1934 and therefore to overcome his insolvency he borrowed 60,000 & 40,000 from his personal friends and used that money to finance an invention for hardening steel, which ultimately resulted unsuccessful. Apart from this, Mr. Rowlandson also borrowed the sum of 6791 from the respondents.
Due to his insolvency he was unable to pay the insurance premiums thus asked for the extension of time period for the payment of premiums. The last and final extension given by the representatives of the company was 3 P.M. on August 3 & at around 2.57 P.M. he killed himself by shooting down.
He had series of interviews with the representatives of the company that day and all the letters and interviews scheduled on that day with him made it clear that he shot himself in order to obtain the policy money so that it can be made available for the payment of his debts. In consequence of this the assured’s niece & administratrix brought a suit against the company claiming the insurance amount.
TRIAL STAGE
The trial of this case took place before the Swift J. and they framed certain questions and answered them.
 ISSUES FRAMED DURING TRIAL
a. Whether Rowlandson at the time when he shot himself was laboring under such a defect as not to understand the quality and nature of the act that he was indulged in, or, if he knew it, so weather was he able to understand that what he did was wrong? No.”
b. Whether he possessed that degree of intellectual, physical and moral control at the time when he shot himself over his actions which a reasonable man ought to have under the similar circumstances? Yes
After hearing both the parties the Swift J. gave his judgment in favor of plaintiff and ordered the defendant company to pay the insurance amount.
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
Defendant getting dissatisfied from the judgment of the Swift J. appealed to the Court of Appeal where the Court ordered in favor of Defendant company and reversed the order of the Swift J. the court reiterated that the one cannot get benefit of his own wrong and said that
APPEAL TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
 ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COURT
1. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the Insurance amount?
2. Whether the contract between the parties is enforceable in law?
3. Whether it will be in contravention to the public policy if the respondents are ordered to pay the insurance sum to assured’s representatives where the assured killed himself?
 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANTS
Appellant was represented by the Sir William Jowitt K.C. and A. T. Denning. They primarily referred to the construction of policy where they said that the policies terms and conditions are clear and no ambiguity is there, the policy is indisputable subject to the condition that policy can be avoided if the assured commits suicide within the one year time period from the issuance of policy therefore if suicide takes place after one year it will not let the policy disputable.
They referred to the number of cases where it was set out by the court that the parties can choose the terms and condition of the policies and in this context appellant referred to Borradaile v. Hunter where the proviso says that and court reiterated that the policy is avoided since the assured killed himself by throwing down himself into the thames and that time he was not able to know the nature of his act.
In the report of that case the provisions as to avoiding policies in case of suicide in use by a large number of insurance companies are set out, and it appeared to be assumed by everyone that it was a matter upon which the parties might make what provisions they chose. And, there is no trace of an argument in that case that it was against public policy to allow the recovery of the policy money where the assured had committed suicide.
Therefore they contested by referring above judgments that the court considered in number of cases that is entirely a matter of parties to arrange and set out their terms and conditions. In Burger v. South African Mutual Life Insurance Society the clause provided that , after paying certain premiums for about ten years this man went for rebellion and thus killed by Britishers. Court held that his representatives are entitled to recover the insurance amount. Further it was said that if death occurs by driving the car at higher speed doesn’t invalidate the policy on the ground of public policy.
Therefore the appellants submitted on the basis of case laws that the limits of public policies are ill defined and what is applicable to one case may not be applicable to another case; it differs from case to case basis and thus should not be held to apply in this case. Sir William Jowitt K.C pleaded that this court should not draw any inference or conclusion as to the ulterior motive of the deceased in committing suicide. The principle that needs to be applied is freedom of contract and autonomy of contract, and as per the terms and contract of the insurance, the company agreed to pay the insurance amount in case if death by suicide occurred after one year, thus company must be held liable to pay the amount.
 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS
Respondents were represented by Roland Oliver K.C., H. L. Murphy K.C., and E. Ryder Richardson. They put forth that the person cannot be benefited out of the wrong that he committed, thus presented that law doesn’t assist a person to ripe the fruits of his crime, especially where the getting of the benefits of those fruits was the sole motive of crime.
They contested the appellants claim by saying that no English authority can be cited in favor of appellants except the judgment of Swift J. Respondents cited the Porter’s laws of Insurance, 8th ed., p. 125 which states. The same principle given in Porter’s laws of Insurance was also put forth by number of cases such as Amicable Insurance Society v. Bolland and Borrodaile v. Hunter moreover the Bunyon on Life Assurance , 5th ed., p. 83, states the law in the same way.
They reiterated that object behind invoking public policy in such cases is to hinder the person from reaping the fruits of his crime. They contested the motor cycle case cited by appellants by stating that the death of the person concerned in that case was accidental and the insurance was against accidents, and for that reason the policy could be sued upon.
In their pleadings the respondents referred to judgment given in Burger V. South African Insurance Society where it was held that if a person who took out the policy dies by his own hands such as suicide, in such scenario the insurance company will be justified in repudiating the claim of assured’s representatives, notwithstanding the clause or proviso that provides for the repudiation of policy in the event of suicide within one year from the date of issuance of policy.
 JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE HOUSE
The House after hearing both the parties and analyzing the facts and authorities cited decided in favor of Respondents. The House said that it will be against the public policy if respondents are ordered to pay the insurance sum where the assured killed himself, thus it will be more like that the criminal is getting fruits of the crime that he committed.
I. OBSERVATION BY LORD ATKIN
He primarily framed two questions in germane to effect of suicide on insurance policies i.e.
1. What was the contract made by the parties?
2. How is that contract affected by public policy?
To this first question he said that if there is no explicit reference to suicide in insurance policy, it leads to two inferences; first it can be sane suicide or intentional suicide which ignores the imperative test of sanity, thus will result in preventing the representatives from claiming the amount.
General principles of insurance law says that the person insured cannot by his own act cause the happening of event upon which the sum is payable. The company has not agreed to pay in such a scenario. It is like that the firs assured cannot claim the money if he intentionally burns his house or the property insured.
Secondly, the contract may or may not expressly cover the event of suicide, the contract can state that if death arises from suicide at any time of any class whether sane or insane is not covered by the policy. Therefore the rights attached with the parties by the contract must be ascertained as per the ordinary rules of construction and it is only after that the role of public policy arises.
Lord Atkin referred to the clause of contract which states and stated that after reading the clause and going through the true construction of the contract, it becomes evident that the insurance company has agreed to pay the sum if the assured dies by his own hand within the one year from the commencement of the policy.
The other question framed by the Lord Atkin is that “whether such a contract is enforceable in law?” the answer to this question was given in negative. He referred to Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association where it was said that the person cannot be benefited out of the wrong that he/she committed. In Moore v. Woolsey the court held the “stipulation that if a man committed suicide within a year the policy should give a right of action would be void. He appears to put it on the ground that it would offer an encouragement to suicide.”
He reiterated that the absolute rule is that the “Court will not accept the benefit arising to a criminal out of his own crime.” Further said that the application of this rule to this case isn’t difficult and referred to Sir John Jervis who in his book named “the office and duties of coroners” said that “Self murder is wisely and “religiously considered by the English law as the most “heinous description of felonious homicide.”
The another question that arose is that “Whether this principle applies to a case where the criminal is dead and his representatives claiming the money out of the wrong that he committed?” To this question he said that the principle of public policy is not that narrow so as to not include the criminal’s estate to getting benefit arising out of the crime committed by the assured.
Therefore on the basis of above mentioned case law, he became agree with the decision given by the Court of Appeal and upheld the decision of Court of appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Lord Thankerton & Lord Russell also got agreed with the opinion given by the Lord Atkin.
II. OBSERVATION BY LORD MACMILLAN
He was of the view that reading the clause it prima facie becomes evident that the respondents are liable to pay the insurance amount since the incident took place within the stipulated time period. The respondents however maintained that it will be against the public policy if they have been ordered to fulfill the obligations arising out of the contract on the ground where the assured shot down himself.
If we go by the actual meaning or by the literal construction of the clause then I don’t find any difficulty in holding the respondents liable to pay the insurance sum. At this juncture the paramount question arises is that “Whether it will be in contravention to the public policy if the respondents are ordered to pay the insurance sum to assured’s representatives where the assured killed himself?”
To this question he said that he finds difficulty in answering this question and stated that first question must always be in germane to public policy i.e. “What is the principle of public policy that will be infringed by the enforcement of the contract?” he reiterated that the principle that will infringe the principle is that the Court doesn’t assist a criminal to get the benefits arising out of his crime. If we enforce the respondents obligations than would it be like as we are enabling the criminal to take benefits of his own crime?
They tried to figure out the intention of the parties and articulated that it is definitely not the intention of the company behind framing their policy as they did to offer any kind of inducement to the commission of crime. Thus it can be said that it is contrary to their interest i.e. they haven’t agreed to pay insurance sum if the assured commits the suicide & dismissed the appeal by not holding the respondents liable to pay the insurance sum.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
This case in my opinion involves a conflict between two sets of public policy. The first involves the duty of the court to enforce such kind of contracts and the second postulates that a person or his representatives cannot be allowed to be benefited out of the wrong committed by him or in simpler words it is like that a person cannot be allowed to insure himself against the crime that he/she might commit.
During the trial stage the Swift J. reiterated that enforceability of contract is of paramount importance and thus ignoring the principle of public policy by ordering respondents to pay. Whereas the Court of Appeal recognized that it will be against the public policy if they order respondents to pay thus overruling the Swift J judgment. In this context, it becomes imperative to know that suicide is considered as felonious act in English law and thus falls in the category of crime whereas suicide is not considered as crime in India but attempt to commit is considered. In England the Suicide Act of 1961 repealed the law that made attempt to commit suicide is an offence.
It is important to note that the Indian Judiciary doesn’t prefer the law given in this case since suicide per se isn’t an offence in India but attempt to commit is an offence therefore this case has no application in India & the insurers would have been made liable here. Section 309 of IPC punishes the attempted suicide and Section 306 punishes abetment to suicide.
I think reading all the facts, arguments presented and authorities cited makes the judgment given by the House absolutely correct. It is the general principle of law that one cannot have the benefits out of his wrong, since in this case person died intentionally to get the insurance sum so as to cover up his debts makes it absolutely against the applicability of such principle. Moreover it has never been the intention of company to promote or to led people to commit the suicide. There is need to figure out the intention of the parties and it can definitely be said that it has never been the intention of the company behind framing their policy as they did to offer any kind of inducement to the commission of crime. Thus it can be said that it is contrary to their interest i.e. they haven’t agreed to pay insurance sum if the assured commits the suicide. Therefore in my opinion I completely agree with the judgment and reasoning flowed by the judges.