Skip to main content

Death of a Salesman: 1890s Version

Image result for death of a salesman poster


If you've actually looked down here at the body of this blog entry after that headline, congratulations on possessing a baroque sense of curiosity.

In 1898 the U.S. Supreme Court considered Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.  The case arose because a fellow named William M. Runk, a Philadelphia businessman, and an insured of the respondent, had shot and killed himself six years before.

Runk was a partner in a dry-goods firm. Not perhaps directly involved in sales, but what little I know of his death reminds me of Arthur Miller's character.  Also, a minor character in the Miller play was about to argue a case of indefinite nature before the Supreme Court, so perhaps Miller was shyly suggesting he knew about Ritter.

In this case, and usually in the 1890s, the insured's insurance policy contained no express exclusion for cases of suicide. The law as interpreted by a trial judge held that a sane man's suicide does not warrant an insurance company pay-out, but an insane man's suicide does. The idea, presumably, was that the sane fellow might be tempted into suicide by a businesslike calculation of his family's coming gain from the proceeds versus their continued troubles in the event of this sane-but-hard-pressed fellow's continued living presence among them. The insane are neither tempted into suicide in this way nor deterred from it by a contrary rule of law, so their suicide can occasion pay-outs without offense to a pro-life public policy.

Runk's suicide was of the death-of-a-salesman sort. He owed a lot of money, had speculated using embezzled funds and lost those funds in the market, etc. He left a suicide note asking that the insurance funds be employed to pay those whom he had cheated. Of course that suicide note has no consequences for his beneficiary, but the question was: should the beneficiary get anything? Was Runk sane or insane?

The jury found that he was sane and that the insurance company was not liable. The matter was appealed to the US Supreme Court. This was in the era before ERIE v. TOMPKINS, when the federal courts including the Supreme Court decided a lot of "common law" questions such as matters of contract interpretation that they and it would later forfeit.

Anyway, the matter went to the Supreme Court and the court, in an opinion by the first Justice Harlan, upheld the trial court judgment. It explicitly affirmed the principle that in the absence of explicit mention in the contract, the rule is that a sane suicide is a defense against insurance company liability.

Harlan wrote that insurance premiums are typically determined by actuarial tables, and that those tables show at any time the probable duration of life. This arrangement suggests, then, that the insured "will leave the event of his death to depend upon some other cause than willful, deliberate self-destruction."

Okay, that phrase isn't as resonant as "the Constitution is color-blind." But it is clear and emphatic. Harlan knew how to be so.    




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…