Stopp v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

Opinion

SIMS, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants are the surviving husbands, and constitute the sole heirs at law, of two passengers who died in an airplane crash allegedly caused by a fellow passenger who had purchased large amounts of life insurance from the defendant insurers. They have appealed from several judgments of dismissal entered in favor of the insurance companies and the alleged agent of one insurer following the plaintiffs’ failure to amend after the several demurrers of the defendants were sustained with leave to amend.

1

Appellants contend that their second amended complaint, as amended by their third amendment thereto, states a cause of action.

2

They assert,

[241]

“The various insurance companies are joined on this theory: That they sold large amounts of life insurance to Frank Gonzales, an improvident person; that they were under a duty to the public in general and to appellants’ decedents in particular to post a written notice and to indicate in bold type on the purchaser’s receipt and on the face of the policy, that the policies contained an exclusion or exception whereunder no payment would be made in the event of death or injury caused by a voluntary act of the insured. Such notice should have been posted in a conspicious place visible frorh the sale area in large type which can be easily read from a distance of eight (8) feet or thereabouts.”

In

Galanis v. Mercury Internat. Ins. Underwriters

(1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 690 [55 Cal.Rptr. 890], this court ruled, “On the basis of this analysis involving a balancing of risk versus utility we are led to the conclusion that insurance companies that sell airplane flight insurance cannot be held liable on a negligence theory based upon their failure to screen and interview the prospective purchaser and to investigate his financial condition.” (247 Cal.App.2d at p. 698.)

Plaintiffs have attempted to meet the challenge of balancing risk versus utility in a well documented brief. It reveals, however, no data showing a greater incidence of life insurance in connection with airplane crashes than that observed in the prior opinion, which recites: “The rarity of insurance as a factor in plane crashes is conceded by plaintiffs, who in their brief cite authority to the effect that of '8 known or suspected airline bomb incidents world wide in the past 30 years . . . insurance has been established as a possible factor in five. . . .’ ”