Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentInsurancePresumptionsCircumstantial EvidenceRule 56Celotexsummary judgment

Facts

Coulter Houchens disappeared in August 1980 after traveling to Bangkok, Thailand while on vacation from his job in Saudi Arabia, and no one heard from him again. After unsuccessful searches, a Virginia court in 1988 declared that he was presumed dead between August 15 and August 29, 1980, under Virginia's seven-year presumption statute. Alice Houchens then sought benefits under two American policies that covered only death caused by accident. American denied coverage, arguing there was no evidence either of death apart from the statutory presumption or of accidental death.

Issue

Whether, on a motion for summary judgment, the statutory presumption that a missing person is dead, together with evidence only of unexplained disappearance, is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that the insured died by accident under accidental-death insurance policies.

Rule

A beneficiary seeking recovery under an accidental-death policy bears the burden of proving that the insured died by accidental means. Although Virginia law may provide a presumption that a person missing for seven years is dead, that presumption does not extend to the manner of death; where the evidence shows only disappearance and does not make accidental death more probable than other explanations, a jury may not infer accidental death by piling inference upon inference, and summary judgment is proper under Rule 56 and Celotex.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Batra sued Lakeview Indemnity in federal court in Richmond after her husband, Omar, vanished during a routine business trip to Phoenix. Eight years later, a Virginia court declared Omar presumed dead, but discovery produced no evidence about what happened to him beyond the fact that no one heard from him again.

Lakeview moves for summary judgment on Nina's claim under an accidental-death policy. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving death by accidental means. A statutory presumption of death establishes death, not the manner of death. Where the record shows only unexplained disappearance, any finding of accidental death would be conjectural, so summary judgment is proper under Rule 56 and Celotex when the plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing on that essential element.