It does not depend on whether the injury was generally foreseeable or even likely, or whether the injury-causing conduct was risky or even reckless. Hether an “ intentionally self-inflicted injury” exclusion applies depends on whether the injury in question was indeed intentional. In those cases, the court concluded that although an insured may have acted intentionally in drinking to excess and then driving, they did not necessarily do so “with a mind towards harming” themselves. The court drew a correlation between previous cases they had decided involving drunk drivers involved in a fatal crash.

The widow filed suit and the case eventually went before the 8 th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The insurer denied the widow’s claim asserting an exclusion in the policy for “loss caused wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, by… intentionally self-inflicted injury.” The insurer argued that decedent intentionally used in illegal substance that directly resulted in his death. The plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A widow, whose husband died of an accidental overdose of heroin, sought benefits under an accidental death insurance policy sponsored by her former husband’s employer.

Stennett casino san diego