Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Suicide-By-Cop Precludes Death Benefits
February 16, 2023
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Caldwell that the beneficiaries of two life insurance policies were not entitled to the policies’ death benefits after the insured of those policies committed “suicide-by-cop.” In a case of first impression, the insurer had issued two insurance policies on the life of Justin Caldwell. Each policy provided a $1 million death benefit to the beneficiaries, one of whom was Justin’s wife, Michelle Caldwell. Each policy contained a clause that excluded suicide from coverage under the policy.

On October 8, 2020, Justin demonstrated signs of suicidal intent after learning that Michelle wanted a divorce. Michelle called 911 to report that Justin was “suicidal” and that he “wanted to die by law enforcement.” Once the police officers arrived to the scene, Justin was shot and killed after he attempted to point his personal rifle at the police.

“Suicide-by-cop” is a colloquial phrase that indicates a form of suicide in which the suicidal person intentionally engages in life-threatening behavior to induce a police officer to shoot him or her. The beneficiaries of the policies argued that the fact that the officer fired the deadly bullet necessarily detached Justin’s death from his intent to die. The district court originally ruled that Justin died “as a result of being shot by another person,” not “suicide,” and granted judgment in favor of the beneficiaries. The Eleventh Circuit, however, reversed, finding that the ordinary meaning of “suicide” included suicide-by-cop.

The appellate court looked to the ordinary meaning of the word “suicide,” finding that a death is considered a suicide when a person intentionally causes his or her own death, the specific method of which is irrelevant. English language and legal dictionaries confirmed that the ordinary meaning of “suicide” covered any method used by someone to end his or her own life voluntarily and intentionally. The court also examined other materials, including scientific journals and past court decisions, to find additional support for its conclusion that “suicide-by-cop” is a form of suicide.

In its conclusory remarks, the Eleventh Circuit cautioned that it was not deciding that the ordinary meaning of “suicide” covers all imaginable instances of suicide-by-cop, noting that many instances may require case-by-case factual determinations regarding the decedent’s intent or actions.
Authored By
Image: Sean W. Hughes
Sean W. Hughes
Related Practices
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Litigation Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions Financial Services Regulatory Litigation and Trials
Related Industries
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.