Can insurance companies deny coverage for deaths during flight from violent crimes? Murdock v. Monumental Life Insurance Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an accidental death insurance policy must cover a death that occurred during flight from a violent felony in Murdock v. Monumental Life Insurance.

Background and Facts

Zachary Murdock and an accomplice robbed a movie theater manager at gunpoint, attacking him with a stun gun and stealing the night’s receipts. During their flight, the victim pursued them in his van. Murdock’s accomplice escaped with the money, but Murdock was struck and killed by the van while fleeing through a field. Murdock’s wife filed a claim under his accidental death insurance policy, which Monumental Life Insurance denied based on a felony exclusion clause and arguing the death was not accidental.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical questions: whether Murdock’s death was “contributed to by” commission of a felony under the policy’s exclusion clause, and whether the death qualified as “accidental” under Utah insurance law. The policy excluded coverage for losses “caused by, results from, or contributed to by…committing an assault or felony.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished LDS Hospital v. Capitol Life Insurance, noting that the policy’s “contributed to by” language was broader than “arising out of” exclusions. The court rejected the argument that Murdock had “withdrawn” from the felony, finding his flight was an effort to retain the robbery’s fruits, maintaining the causal connection. Regarding the accidental death claim, the court applied Hoffman v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, holding that when an insured threatens death or serious bodily injury, any resulting death is not accidental because the insured should expect the victim to “very likely respond with deadly force.”

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing exclusionary clause language in insurance policies. The “contributed to by” standard creates broader exclusions than other formulations, and withdrawal from criminal activity may not break causal connections when the insured is still fleeing to preserve criminal proceeds. For accidental death claims, Utah courts will deny coverage when the insured’s violent conduct makes a deadly response reasonably foreseeable, regardless of the victim’s subjective intent.