California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 7 Cal.4th 125, 866 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1994):
More recently, our neighbor state of Oregon went so far as to reach out and abrogate the distinction--and overrule contrary decisions--in a case in which the issue was not even presented because it did not involve an "accidental means" policy. Nevertheless the court seized the occasion, explaining that "the distinction keeps rising to the surface and creating unnecessary confusion; consequently, we shall lay the distinction to rest at this seemingly opportune time." (Botts v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., supra, 585 P.2d 657, 659.) Its sole reason for doing so was that it was convinced that the ordinary purchaser of insurance would not "expect the concept of 'accident' to have a different meaning depending upon whether the policy purports to require accidental means or accidental results." (Id. at p. 660.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.