v.
Hawyeye Commercial Men's Association
On August 20, 1906, George Jenkins became a member of the Hawkeye Commercial Men’s Association. This entitled him, in event of being injured “through external, violent and accidental means,” to certain specified benefits. If the bodily injuries so received “resulted in death within twenty-six weeks from said ae [*115] eident, the beneficiary named in his application for membership or his heirs if no beneficiary is named therein, shall be paid the proceeds of one assessment of two dollars upon each member in good standing but- in no case shall such payment exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.” He died August 26, 1907, and, the defendant having refused to levy an assessment or make any provision for the payment of the indemnity, this action to enforce compliance with the articles and by-laws of the association was begun in the district court of .Dubuque County, April 22, 1908.
In Healy v. Association, 133 Ill. 556 (25 N. E. 52, 9 L. R. A. 371, 23 Am. St. Rep. 637), death by poison accidentally taken was held to -be by violent and external means, and a like conclusion was reached in Paul v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 112 N. Y. 472 (20 N. E. 347, 3 L. R. A. 443, 8 Am. St. Rep. 758), where the assured died from the accidental inhalation of illuminating gas. In American Accident Co. v. Reigart, 94 Ky. 547 (23 S. W. 191, 21 L. R. A. 651, 42 Am. St. Rep. 374), while the assured was eating, a piece of meat lodged in the wind pipe, causing death, and this was held to be [*117] through violent and external means. In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hudgins (Tex. Civ. App.), 72 S. W. 1047, the assured ate two raw oysters before discovering they were unsound, and his death was caused by these lodging in the upper part of the intestines, inflaming the mucous membrane, and causing the same to enlarge and obstruct the passage. The eating was held to be accidental ; the court quoting with approval from 1 Cyc. 249: “Where, however, the effect is not -the natural or probable consequence of the means which produce it — an effect which does not ordinarily follow, and can not be reasonably anticipated from the use of the means, or an effect which the' actor did not intend to produce, and which he can not be charged with a design of producing — it is produced by accidental means.” See definitions collected in Carnes v. Ass’n, 106 Iowa, 281. In Miller v. Fidelity and Casualty Co., (C. C.), 97 Fed. 836, the assured swallowed “certain hard, pointed, and resistant substances of wood,” which so perforated the intestinal canal, the tissue of which had been weakened by illness, as to cause death, and the court declared these “to have been external, violent, and accidental means, for they originated outside of the body, and were accidentally violent, although the accidental effect took place within. The assurance is not, .by the first clause quoted, limited to an external effect, nor to one beginning at the surface. The accidental operation of external means may be wholly internal.”
These decisions and others which might be cited are sufficient warrant for a like decision, in the case at bar. They proceed on the theory that the design of this provision of the policy is to guard the insurer against a liability upon a fraudulent claim of the insured for indemnity for bodily injuries of which the only evidence might be the word of the person, and that, as the terms of the policy are to be construed most strongly against the insurer, the means coming from outside the body, [*118] though the injury be internal, should be regarded as external. There was no evidence of how the fish bone came to be in the rectum, and therefore it is presumed that it reached there in the ordinary course 'of nature as other excretions — through the alimentary canal. If it was likely to cause injury, then, as the assured is presumed to have given heed to the instincts of self-preservation, it is not to be inferred that he swallowed the hone voluntarily. See Stephenson v. Ass’n, 108 Iowa, 641; Tackman v. Brotherhood, 132 Iowa, 64. But, regardless of whether in eating the fish he may have carelessly swallowed the bone and all, it is to be said that indigestible materials ordinarily pass out of the system without injury or inconvenience. That this bone caught in the rectum and inflicted, the wound was so out of the ordinary course of things as to constitute an accident. The effect was one which does not ordinarily follow, could not reasonably have been anticipated, and can not be charged to have resulted from design. Manifestly, then, it was within •the well-recognized definitions of accident. Nor is this conclusion obviated by the circumstance that death re>sulted from septicaemia or blood poisoning. Without the accidental wound by Hie fish bone, blood poisoning would not have ensued, and therefore that disease was incidental to the wound. Central Accident Ins. Co. v. Rembe, 220. Ill. 151 (77 N. E. 123, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 110 Am. St. Rep. 235); 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 155; Martin v. Indemnity Co., 151 N. Y. 94 (45 N. E. 379); Western Com. Trav. Ass’n v. Smith, 56 U. S. App. 393 (85 Fed. 401, 29 C. C. A. 223); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 165 Ind. 317 (75 N. E. 262, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 422, 112 Am. St. Rep. 232, 6 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 551); Cary v. Ins. Co., 127 Wis. 67 (106 N. W. 1055, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 926, 115 Am. St. Rep. 997 (7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 484.)
[*119]