Medical-legal ramifications of an autoerotic asphyxial death.

Attorneys, insurers, and psychiatrists frequently find themselves metaphorical bed partners. This co-tenancy can be convivial, even occasionally fruitful. Such an instance involves a case in which a man who in the process of attempting to obtain sexual gratification asphyxiated to death. A double indemnity death benefits policy was in force. The insurer refused to pay, contending that the deceased was mentally infirm and that the wording of the policy specifically excluded coverage of such a person. The beneficiary disagreed and promptly filed suit. 1 Three of the four similar cases that have reached the appellate court level (and have been reported) have held for the insurance company defendants. In each of these , the issues decided by the courts had to do with whether the death was "accidental" within the policy language and applicable law. 2 In the present case, however, trial arguments focused on the term "mental infirmity," though other semantic ambiguities, as written in insurance contracts, were also at issue. The arguments in combination with a properly deployed psychiatric expert are identified as crucial factors in determining the favorable outcome.