The British Columbia Court of Appeal yesterday overturned a lower court ruling, finding that falling drunk out of a tree constitutes an “unintended self-inflicted” injury, voiding part of a life insurance policy.

B.C. Life & Casualty Co. (BCLC) appealed a trial judge’s finding that an exclusion clause in a group life insurance policy, providing coverage for accidental death and dismemberment, did not apply to the circumstances in which James Booth died on the on March 16, 2002. The issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in holding that an exclusion clause didn’t apply.

The appeal court noted that there was no direct evidence of how Booth met his death. His body was discovered at the bottom of a tree beneath a bridge. It was reported that Booth routinely climbed off the bridge and down the tree as a shortcut to his home. The coroner determined that there was no suggestion of any kind of an altercation on the bridge, and there was no suggestion of any suicidal tendencies. The coroner said the evidence that he observed was equally consistent with the deceased jumping from the bridge and landing in the tree, or with his reaching from the bridge to grip a branch and then stepping onto the tree “more or less carefully”.

Booth was insured by BCLC under his employer’s group insurance policy. The insurance company argued that its obligation to pay the accidental death benefit was excluded by a provision of the policy that excluded self-inflicted injury, whether intentional or unintentional, sustained while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher, or under the influence of any narcotics. Booth’s blood-alcohol level was 0.18.

The trial judge concluded, however, that he was “not satisfied it has been shown the injury which was sustained in this case can be said to be self-inflicted”. He stated: “One wonders what an unintentionally self-inflicted injury might be”. The trial judge held that doubt as to the meaning of the clause should be construed against the insurer.

BCLC contended on appeal that, on a plain reading of the exclusion clause, it applies because Booth’s death was the result of an “unintentional self-inflicted injury”. Yesterday, the appeal court agreed, stating that the “trial judge appears to have understood that a self-inflicted injury was one that could only be the result of the insured’s intentional or deliberate conduct, and that ‘unintentional’ self-infliction was therefore not possible, or at least ambiguous.”

The appeal court found that “Where the insured is the sole actor in the events giving rise to his injury, and there is no other external cause, or cause unrelated to his conduct, then it is my view that the injury can properly be said to be unintentionally self-inflicted.” It allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim.