The Heart Attack, the Tree, and the AD&D Exclusions
Daniel, 47, had a history of coronary artery disease and hypertension; his records show a 70% blockage and medication noncompliance. He was driving alone on a highway when his car left the road and struck a tree; he died at the scene. The autopsy listed the cause of death as 'blunt-force chest trauma' and noted severe atherosclerosis and a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%. The medical examiner's narrative says a cardiac arrhythmia probably caused him to lose consciousness before impact. The death certificate's manner of death is 'accident.' His $250,000 accidental death and dismemberment policy excludes losses caused by 'sickness or disease' and by 'injury sustained while intoxicated.' His widow filed a claim, and the insurer denied it, citing both exclusions.
1. What causation standard applies in an AD&D claim, and how should the insurer analyze the disease exclusion?
Read the worked answer
AD&D policies cover accidental bodily injury that causes death, and courts generally ask whether the accident was the proximate or efficient cause. The medical examiner's narrative points to an arrhythmia causing loss of consciousness before impact. If the insurer proves that sequence, the sickness or disease exclusion bars the claim: the chest trauma is the mechanism of death, but the crash was initiated by disease. The death certificate's 'accident' manner is not dispositive because manner of death is a public-health classification, not a policy determination. The widow can argue that the trauma was the direct and independent cause and that the cardiac event is speculative. The insurer bears the burden of proving an exclusion. The policy wording also matters: if it requires an accidental means, a natural event that leads to a crash is less likely to be covered than under an accidental-result wording.
2. Does the intoxication exclusion apply, and what must the insurer show?
Read the worked answer
It depends on the exact wording. 'Injury sustained while intoxicated' is status-based: the insurer needs to show only that Daniel was intoxicated at the time of the injury, and a BAC of 0.14% is above the 0.08% legal limit. If the policy instead excluded losses 'caused by' intoxication, the insurer would have to show that the alcohol contributed to the crash. Even under a status clause, some states require a causal connection, so Oklahoma law and the exact policy language must be checked. The insurer should not rely on the autopsy alone; it should be able to explain how alcohol impaired his driving and led to the collision. The disease and intoxication exclusions are independent, so the insurer prevails if either applies, but each exclusion must be proved under its own wording and causation requirement.
3. What evidence would change the outcome, and what should the widow do?
Read the worked answer
Evidence that would change the outcome includes an accident-reconstruction report showing Daniel was alert and braked before impact, toxicology showing the BAC was below the limit or rose after death, a cardiology review ruling out arrhythmia, or a policy with broader accidental-injury wording and no status intoxication exclusion. The widow should request the claim file and the policy, preserve the vehicle and medical records, and obtain an independent reconstruction. If the denial is ambiguous, she can pursue a bad-faith claim or seek a declaratory judgment. If the insurer relies on one exclusion but not the other, the reasoning should be documented. The exam point is that the death certificate and the autopsy narrative can conflict, and the policy's exact exclusion wording, not the label 'accident,' controls.