{ "id": 711378, "name": "Leslie P. VIHSTADT, formerly known as Leslie Edmondson, individually and as natural mother of Lynn P. Edmondson, Minor and Georgann Edmondson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Vihstadt v. Travelers Insurance", "decision_date": "1985-11-19", "docket_number": "No. 15392", "first_page": "465", "last_page": "467", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.M. 465" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "709 P.2d 187" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "490 P.2d 454", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 Wash.App. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. App.", "case_ids": [ 1867038 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-app/5/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 U.S. 491", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1498036 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501", "parenthetical": "Cardozo, J. dissenting" }, { "page": "464", "parenthetical": "Cardozo, J. dissenting" }, { "parenthetical": "Cardozo, J. dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/291/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 N.W.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 Minn. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 1768552 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/242/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Pa.Super. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 657365 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1923, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194-95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/82/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2762179 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" }, { "page": "1229" }, { "page": "553-54" }, { "page": "1229-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565158 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 N.M. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1562302 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284", "parenthetical": "quoting Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 45 N.M. 354, 367, 115 P.2d 342, 350 (1941)" }, { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "quoting Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 45 N.M. 354, 367, 115 P.2d 342, 350 (1941)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/47/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5347111 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5376828 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" }, { "page": "955" }, { "page": "84" }, { "page": "954" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.M. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2854115 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" }, { "page": "725" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0250-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 7483, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2824981353673318e-07, "percentile": 0.6178906569456366 }, "sha256": "1a03ca8638746151292127844093e052aecf1e3c6d2a126e4cdbb4131ad2bab2", "simhash": "1:f5cf4dd0789fed42", "word_count": 1187 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:32.898300+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "FEDERICI, C.J., and SOSA, Senior Justice, concur." ], "parties": [ "Leslie P. VIHSTADT, formerly known as Leslie Edmondson, individually and as natural mother of Lynn P. Edmondson, Minor and Georgann Edmondson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSTOWERS, Justice.\nLeslie P. Vihstadt (Vihstadt) filed suit in the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County to recover damages under a health insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). After a non-jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Vihstadt. Travelers appealed to the Bernalillo County District Court which upheld the Metropolitan Court judgment. Travelers appeals the District Court judgment. We reverse.\nThe following facts are pertinent to this appeal. On June 25, 1983, 14 year-old Lynn P. Edmondson (Lynn) had a quarrel with her natural mother, Vihstadt. Following the argument, Lynn deliberately ingested 50 aspirin. Her stated intention in taking the aspirin was to commit suicide or to scare her mother. After Lynn became ill from aspirin poisoning, she was hospitalized and successfully treated for the physical effects of the poisoning.\nGeorgann Edmondson (Edmondson), Lynn\u2019s step-mother, filed an insurance claim with Travelers to cover Lynn\u2019s medical expenses. Edmondson filed the insurance claim because she purchased the health insurance policy which provided coverage for her step-daughter, Lynn. Travelers denied coverage because Lynn\u2019s medical expenses were not covered by the policy. The policy covered medical expenses \u201cincurred on account of ... an accident\u201d or \u201cincurred as a result of accidental injury or sickness.\u201d According to Travelers, Lynn\u2019s medical expenses were not incurred as a result of an accidental bodily injury or illness, but rather were the result of an intentional act for which the policy did not provide coverage.\nVihstadt, as Lynn\u2019s natural mother and guardian, then filed suit in Metropolitan Court where a judgment in Vihstadt\u2019s favor was entered. Travelers appealed to the District Court. Edmondson was added as a plaintiff in the District Court proceeding. The District Court affirmed the Metropolitan Court\u2019s judgment and found that the policy was ambiguous because the term \u201caccidental injury or sickness\u201d was undefined in the policy. The District Court stated that the policy should have included a specific provision excluding overdose or attempted suicide injuries from coverage in order to render the policy unambiguous.\nOn appeal, Travelers raises the following issues:\n1. The District Court erred in ruling that the insurance policy was ambiguous.\n2. The District Court erred in ruling that there was substantial evidence to support coverage under the insurance policy.\n3. The District Court erred in upholding the Metropolitan Court\u2019s damage calculation.\nAs to the first issue, we agree with Travelers that the district court erred in ruling that the insurance policy was ambiguous because it lacked a definition for the term \u201caccidental injury or sickness.\u201d Whenever the word \u201caccident\u201d is not defined in the insurance policy, \u201cthe word must be interpreted in its usual, ordinary and popular sense.\u201d Watson v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 72 N.M. 250, 253, 382 P.2d 723, 725 (1963).\nIn Scott v. New Empire Insurance Co., 75 N.M. 81, 84, 400 P.2d 953, 955 (1965), we again stated, \"[ajbsent any provision in the policy defining \u2018accidental means\u2019 as something different from that as understood by the general public, we follow the holding in Fowler v. First National Life Insurance Co. of America, [71 N.M. 364, 378 P.2d 605 (1963),] that words, phrases or terms will be given their ordinary meaning.\u201d\nIn Webb v. New Mexico Publishing Co., 47 N.M. 279, 284, 141 P.2d 333, 336 (1943) (quoting Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 45 N.M. 354, 367, 115 P.2d 342, 350 (1941)), with regard to the phrase \u201cinjury by accident,\u201d the Court stated:\n\u201cWe ... hold that \u2018injury by accident\u2019 means nothing more than an accidental injury, or an accident, as the word is ordinarily used. It denotes an unlooked for mishap, or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.\u201d\nThe word \u201caccidental\u201d was also defined in King v. Travelers Insurance Co., 84 N.M. 550, 505 P.2d 1226 (1973). \u201cIn its ordinary, popular sense, [\u2018accidental\u2019] expresses the thought of an event occurring without design or purpose, or unintentionally on the part of the assured____ [However, the definition of \u2018accidental\u2019] does not include the result of wilful design.\u201d Id. at 553, 505 P.2d at 1229 (quoting Hamilton v. American Indemnity Co., 82 Pa.Super. 191, 194-95 (1923)). The Court further stated that an \u201c[a]ccident, ... within the terms of an accident policy, is an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or an unknown cause.\u201d Id. 84 N.M. at 553-54, 505 P.2d at 1229-30 (quoting Hauen stein v. Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 242 Minn. 354, 358-59, 65 N.W.2d 122, 126 (1954)).\nIn this case, Lynn\u2019s ingestion of 50 aspirin was not an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which was not expected or designed. Lynn deliberately and intentionally ingested the aspirin. Therefore, her injury was not the result of an accident as meant by the policy.\nThe district court in upholding the Metropolitan Court\u2019s decision impliedly held that the term \u201caccident\u201d could be viewed as referring either to the means of incurring the injury or to the ultimate result. In other words, although the actual act of taking the overdose was intentional, nonetheless, the result, the aspirin poisoning, was an accident because it was unintended.\nWe take this opportunity to lay to rest the possible revival of such a distinction. In Scott we rejected the distinction between accidental means and accidental results. In that case we stated, \u201c[i]f there was no accident in the means, there was none in the result, for the two [are] inseparable____ There was an accident throughout, or there was no accident at all.\u201d Id. 75 N.M. at 84, 400 P.2d at 954 (quoting Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 291 U.S. 491, 501, 54 S.Ct. 461, 464, 78 L.Ed. 934 (1934) (Cardozo, J. dissenting)).\u201d\nThe court in Hayden v. Insurance Co. of North America, 5 Wash.App. 710, 490 P.2d 454 (1971), also rejected the distinction between accidental means and accidental results. In Hayden the court stated:\n[D]eath or injury does not result from accident or accidental means within the terms of an accident policy where it is the natural result of the insured\u2019s voluntary act, unaccompanied by anything unforeseen, except the death or injury. [An ajccident is never present when a deliberate act is performed, unless some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs which produces or brings about the result of injury or death.\nId. at 712, 490 P.2d at 456. (Emphasis added.)\nSince Lynn\u2019s injury was the natural result of an intentional and voluntary act, the ingestion of 50 aspirin, her injury was not accidental; therefore, Travelers was not required to provide coverage.\nWe do not discuss the issues raised by Travelers in Points 2 and 3 because the issue under Point 1 is dispositive of this case.\nFor the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nFEDERICI, C.J., and SOSA, Senior Justice, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STOWERS, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Keleher & McLeod, Margaret E. Davidson, Robert H. Clark, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "Richard Walker, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "709 P.2d 187\nLeslie P. VIHSTADT, formerly known as Leslie Edmondson, individually and as natural mother of Lynn P. Edmondson, Minor and Georgann Edmondson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 15392.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 19, 1985.\nKeleher & McLeod, Margaret E. Davidson, Robert H. Clark, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nRichard Walker, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0465-01", "first_page_order": 503, "last_page_order": 505 }