Fister v. Allstate Life Insurance Co.

BATTAGLIA, Judge. The petitioners, the beneficiaries of life insurance policies of the decedent, question the propriety of the Court of Special Appeals’s reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in petitioners’ favor. The life insurance policies in question exclude coverage for death by suicide. Although the decedent unquestionably wanted to die, her attempts to kill herself failed, and she ultimately convinced a close friend to pull the trigger of a shotgun aimed at her head.

The Circuit Court for Frederick County ruled that the insured’s death was not a suicide and entered summary judgment in favor of petitioners. The respondent, Allstate Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “Allstate”), appealed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that Fister committed suicide because, as a matter of law, the term “suicide” must be interpreted from the perspective of the insured. Petitioners now challenge the decision of the Court of Special Appeals. We reverse the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that summary judgment was properly granted.

We conclude that the term “suicide” in Section 16-215 of the Insurance Article cannot be interpreted to include a death that occurs at the hands of another as the clear and unambiguous definition of the term “suicide” is to “intentionally take one’s own life.” Therefore, the decedent’s death is not a suicide, and the beneficiaries are entitled to recover the proceeds of the life insurance policies. I. Background A. Facts The parties stipulated to the relevant facts in this case. Of particular import, it is uncontested that in September of 1996, Mary Gaye Fister wished to die. During the months prior to her death, Fister left several messages with friends and ²⁰⁶ family, conveying her intention to end her life.

Fister had incurred substantial debts, both in her personal life (including extensive gambling and consumer debt, as well as outstanding taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service) and in her business life (Fister’s business, Fister Accounting Services, Inc., defaulted on several bank loans and credit accounts), which totaled more than $1.2 million by the time of her death. In addition, in early September 1996, a criminal investigation was initiated concerning Fister’s involvement in the marketing and sale of interests in a fictitious entity called the Delaware Physicians Investment Trust. 1 Fister attempted, on several occasions, to find someone to kill her. She asked friends and a former boyfriend to assist her in either performing the task or finding someone who would. One of her closest friends, Lawrence Goldman, after repeatedly refusing to assist Fister, ultimately agreed to accompany her on September 10, 1996, when she resolved to kill herself.

Fister and Goldman drove to a site on Baldwin Road in Monrovia, Maryland, with a 12 gauge shotgun that Fister had purchased a few days earlier. Fister told Goldman that her death could not appear to be a suicide because her life insurance policies excluded coverage in the event that the insured, Fister, commits “suicide.” Therefore, intending to make it appear as though she was murdered, she asked Goldman to hold the shotgun to her head while she pulled the trigger. Fister had tied a string to the shotgun trigger housing so that she could pull the trigger while Goldman held and aimed the shotgun. Ms. Fister attempted to pull the string several times, but the shotgun did not discharge.

According to Goldman, “[s]he kept pulling and pulling and pulling and then she started yelling at me saying, ‘Let’s do it! Let’s do it! Let’s do it!’ She said, ‘Larry, for the first time in your life, do something right, help me! Help me!’ And before I knew it, I had pulled the trigger.” After pulling the trigger, Goldman disposed of the gun and left the scene.

Fister’s body ²⁰⁷ was discovered by a police officer several hours later. Goldman was charged with first degree murder, and pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, receiving an agreed upon sentence of five years imprisonment. B. Insurance Policies Between November 1994 and May 1995, Allstate issued five separate life insurance policies, bearing an aggregate death benefit of $1,650,000, on the life of Mary Gaye Fister. Three of those life insurance policies are the subject of this appeal: 2 the beneficiary of Policy 792-832-862, issued in the amount of $1,000,000, is the Estate of Mary Gaye Fister (hereinafter “Estate”); the beneficiary of Policy 792-832-887, issued in the amount of $100,000, is Dorothy Winslow, the decedent’s mother; the beneficiaries of Policy 792-980-072, issued in the amount of $200,000, are Lawrence Goldman and William Tad Cole.

With respect to the latter policy, however, the contingent beneficiary is the Estate. 3 Each of the Allstate policies contained the following exclusion to insurance coverage: ²⁰⁸ Suicide — If the insured dies by suicide while sane or insane within 2 years from the start date of the contract: 1) We will only pay a refund of the payments made; and 2) The contract will stop. Notably, Fister’s death is within the two year period from the date of issuance of each of the policies. C. Legal Proceedings Petitioners filed a complaint against Allstate in the Circuit Court for Frederick County seeking to recover the death benefits under the life insurance policies covering Mary Gaye Fister. 4 Cross motions for summary judgment were filed by petitioners and Allstate. On February 17, 2000, the Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of petitioners.

The court ruled that, because the term “suicide” was ambiguous, it must be construed as one would construe any ambiguous term in a contract, i.e. against the maker of that contract (Allstate). Therefore Fister’s death could not be considered a suicide. Allstate appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that Fister’s death was a suicide because courts must view the term of contention, even though unambiguous, 5 from the per ²⁰⁹ spective of the insured. Allstate also argued that the slayer’s rule precluded recovery by petitioners.

The petitioners responded that once a court deems a statutory or contract term to be unambiguous, the analysis stops and courts must determine the rights of the parties based on that unambiguous definition; therefore, the petitioners are entitled to recover because, as a matter of law, Fister’s death was not a suicide. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of Allstate. Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Fister, 136 Md.App. 368 , 765 A.2d 1024 (2001).

The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the parties that the term “suicide” was unambiguous, but later held that “suicide” included instances where the decedent did not complete the final act herself. Id. at 379 , 765 A.2d at 1030 . The Court of Special Appeals further concluded that in considering whether the death was a suicide, it was required, as a matter of law, to view the matter from the perspective of the insured, i.e. Fister’s perspective.

Id. at 381-82 , 765 A.2d at 1031 . Thus, the Court held that for purposes of her life insurance policies, Fister died as a result of suicide, effectively canceling the death benefits under the policies. Id. at 382 , 765 A.2d at 1031 . Petitioners sought, and this Court granted, a writ of certio-rari to consider whether the definition of suicide, used both in statute and in contract, encompasses circumstances where the death of one, while clearly intended and desired, actually occurs at the hands of another.

Because we conclude that the definition of “suicide” unambiguously entails the intentional taking of one’s own life, we hold that, as a matter of law, Fister’s death was not a suicide and petitioners are entitled to recover the benefits from the insurance policies.

II

Standard of Review Our review of a grant of summary judgment involves the determination of whether a dispute of material fact exists, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Ross, 365 Md. 351, 359 , 779 A.2d 380, 385 (2001); Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 113 , 753 A.2d 41, 47 (2000); ²¹⁰ Gross v. Sussex, Inc., 332 Md. 247, 255 , 630 A.2d 1156, 1160 (1993), and whether the trial court’s ruling was legally correct. See Williams, 359 Md. at 113-14 , 753 A.2d at 47 -48 (quoting Goodwich v. Sinai Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 343 Md. 185, 204 , 680 A.2d 1067, 1076 (1996)). Because the facts are undisputed, we are left to determine whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the relevant law to the uncontested facts. As with all questions of law, we review this matter de novo.

See Register of Wills for Baltimore County v. Arrows-mith, 365 Md. 237, 249 , 778 A.2d 364, 371 (2001).

III

Discussion As with any contract, our interpretation of an insurance policy, its scope, and its limitations, involves discerning the terms of the contract itself. See Cole v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 359 Md. 298, 305 , 753 A.2d 533, 537 (2000); Kendall v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 348 Md. 157, 165 , 702 A.2d 767, 771 (1997); Chantel Assoc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins.

Co., 338 Md. 131, 142 , 656 A.2d 779, 784 (1995). Generally, when interpreting a contract’s terms, our primary consideration is the “customary, ordinary, and accepted meaning” of the language used. See Cole, 359 Md. at 305 , 753 A.2d at 537 (quoting Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 324 Md. 44, 56 , 595 A.2d 469, 475 (1991)). When the terms of the contract are derived from explicit statutory guidelines, however, the paramount consideration is interpreting the pertinent statutory provision.

While the insurance policy contractually binds the parties in this case, the authority for implementing and utilizing the specific policy terms in question emanates from our State Legislature, and it is to their design to which we defer. See Dutta v. State Farm Ins. Co., 363 Md. 540, 550-51 , 769 A.2d 948, 954 (2001)(considering first, the extent to which PIP coverage was mandated by the State Legislature under Maryland Code, Title 19, subtitle 5 of the Insurance Article (1995, 1997 RepLVol.) when determining whether the petitioner was entitled to recover for emergency treatment under his automobile insurance policy); Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. ²¹¹ Ins.

Comm’r, 352 Md. 561, 574 , 723 A.2d 891, 897 (1999) (concluding that terms in an insurance policy must comply with statutorily required obligations); Staab v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 345 Md. 428, 436-437 , 693 A.2d 340, 344 (1997) (stating that an insurance policy shall be construed to reflect any statutory requirements). The Maryland Legislature enacted a provision which forbids insurance companies from excluding policy coverage for deaths caused in a specified manner except under five specific circumstances, of which suicide is one. The provision, now codified at Section 16-215 of the Insurance Article, 6 states: (a) Prohibited.- — Except as otherwise provided in this section, a policy of life insurance may not be delivered or issued for delivery in the State if the policy excludes or restricts liability for death that is caused in a specified manner or occurs while the insured has a specified status.

(b) Exceptions.— (1) A policy of life insurance may contain a provision that excludes or restricts coverage for death under any of the following circumstances: (v) death that occurs within 2 years after the date of issue of the policy as a result of suicide while sane or insane. Maryland Code, § 16-215 of the Insurance Article (1996, 1997 Repl.Vol.). To identify and effectuate the underlying legislative intent, the principal goal of statutory interpretation, we look first to the ordinary and plain meaning of the language of the statute. See Derry v. State, 358 Md. 325, 335 , 748 A.2d ²¹² 478, 483 (2000)(citing Robinson v. State, 353 Md. 683, 694 , 728 A.2d 698, 703 (1999)).

When the words are clear and unambiguous, according to their commonly understood meaning, our inquiry ordinarily ends. See Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Ass’n. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Maryland, 361 Md. 196, 203-04 , 760 A.2d 1087, 1091 (2000)(citing Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 128 , 756 A.2d 987, 991 (2000) and Chesapeake and Potomac Tel.

Co. of Maryland v. Dir. of Fin. for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 343 Md. 567, 578 , 683 A.2d 512, 517-18 (1996)). The term of contention in the case sub judice is the word “suicide,” which is left undefined by Section 16-215, and by the entire Insurance Article. In fact, despite use of the word in several different contexts throughout the Maryland Code, 7 the Maryland Legislature had never deemed it necessary to define “suicide” until 1999, when it enacted the Assisted Suicide Act. See Maryland Code, Art. 27 § 416 (1957, 1996 RepLVol., 2000 Supp.). 8 There, the Legislature defined “sui ²¹³ cide” as “the act or instance of intentionally taking one’s own life.” Id.

We believe that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, and the definition recently set forth by the Legislature, are synonymous and unequivocally unambiguous. Suicide is the intentional taking of one’s own life, i.e. by his or her own hands. In discussing similar suicide exclusion clauses, we have historically used terminology such as “taking one’s own life,” Ins. Co. of North America v. Aufenkamp, 291 Md. 495, 504 , 435 A.2d 774, 779 (1981), and “death ... by his own hand or act,” Knickerbocker Life Ins.

Co. v. Peters, 42 Md. 414, 421 (1875), to describe suicide. One’s desire to die, but failure to accomplish the act, does not mean that another person’s successful completion of the act is still considered suicide. Suicide requires more than simple thought, and more than elaborate planning; it requires conduct — an act which consummates the intent — as it is generally the actor’s ultimate conduct to which we look when determining responsibility. Fister did not commit suicide because she did not take her own life; rather, another person, exercising his own free will, was ultimately responsible for her death.

The operation of this independent free will acts as an intervening cause of Fister’s death. Despite her pronounced and unquestionable desire to die, and her uncontested, disreputable, and even fraudulent motives in seeking to make her death appear ²¹⁴ as a murder for purposes of assuring that her beneficiaries receive insurance policy proceeds, Fister’s death was- undeniably the result of a homicide. A conscious, thinking human being, who was in no immediate danger or peril, made a choice to pull the trigger. As a result of that independent choice, Fister died.

Along those lines, the Court of Special Appeals mentioned an unsubstantiated psychological theory described as “suicide by cop” in footnote 5 of its opinion. According to this theory, when a person intentionally provokes the police to use deadly force, he or she has committed “suicide by cop.” 136 Md.App. at 379 n. 5, 765 A.2d at 1030 n. 5. 9 The Court of Special Appeals adduced this theory to support its assertion that “[t]he accepted definition of suicide does not mandate that the decedent carry out the final act in order for his or her death to be considered suicide.” 136 Md.App. at 379 , 765 A.2d at 1030 . It is worthy of note that none of the jurisdictions cited by the Court of Special Appeals adopted this “theory” as an extension of the legal definition of suicide; rather, this theory was only raised in reference to witness testimony concerning the psychological state of one of the parties to the case. Furthermore, the commonly understood definition of suicide simply does not encompass actions taken by another.

To use the example offered by the Court of Special Appeals: when one incites a police officer to use deadly violence, we are either presented with justifiable homicide, if the officer’s use of deadly force is found to be reasonable, or simple homicide, if the officer’s use of deadly force is unreasonable. But, under neither circumstance are we presented with suicide, for the death occurred at the hands of another. This Court does not stand alone in declaring the meaning of “suicide” unambiguous; in fact, the term “suicide” was de- ²¹⁵ dared to be unambiguous by the Court of Spedal Appeals, and was stipulated as such by both parties in this case. The question then becomes, how could the term suicide, under its ordinary and commonly understood definition, legitimately be interpreted to include a not-so-ordinary and not-so-common action, i.e. the pulling of the trigger by someone other than the alleged “suicide” victim.

The answer is found in the Court of Special Appeals’s erroneous application of the principles of contract (insurance policy) interpretation that we set forth in Cole v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 359 Md. at 305, 753 A.2d at 537 (2000). Cole, supra, involved this Court’s attempt to discern whether the event-the shooting and killing of Ms. Cole while seated in her parked van-constituted an “accident” for purposes of recovering insurance proceeds under her automobile policy. First, we note that, contrary to the case before us today, our decision in Cole was not guided or constrained by any statutory construct; rather, the Cole decision was based solely on contract interpretation.

Second, and again, contrary to the present case, the premise for the principles of interpretation established in the Cole decision was the ambiguity surrounding the word “accident.” Both parties in Cole agreed on the textual definition of “accident,” i.e. that under Maryland law, “accident” is defined as “a happening; an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation; an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect from a known cause, and therefore not expected.” 359 Md. at 307, 753 A.2d at 538