In all of the interviews that I have done of fascinating and famous lawyers there is one question that I have never asked: why did you go to law school? I skip it because the chances of getting anything other than a predictable answer are minimal. I wanted to do justice. The law always fascinated me. My dad was a lawyer. I loved Perry Mason. To be sure, all of these are valid reasons for the three year enlistment -- just not very interesting.

Then I got renowned forensic pathologist Cyril H. Wecht on the phone. Not only did I want to ask him why he went to law school -- but it was at the top of my list of questions. You see, Wecht entered the night program at the University of Pittsburgh Law School in 1957. At that time he was doing a residency in pathology at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Oakland (Pittsburgh). Let me say that again. Wecht graduated from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and began the rigors of a residency – known for requiring stretches of insanely long hours on the job. And while that’s all going on he’s dealing with Hadley v. Baxendale and the law against perpetuities. Who in their right mind would do that? The only realistic reason why the words “law school” and “residency” should ever appear in the same sentence is in a discussion of in-state tuition.

Incidentally, as I sometimes enjoy doing with interviewees, I wrote a joke for Wecht -- about this unique combination of degrees. Why did the forensic pathologist go to law school? Because he wanted to be able to determine if someone’s cause of death was reading the tax code.

As a forensic pathologist, 84-year old Cyril Wecht is in a club with few members. Wecht told me that only about 500 people, give or take, call this a profession. But the number of forensic pathologists with a law degree on their resume can be counted on one hand. Indeed, I could hear Wecht counting on his fingers, whispering names to himself, when answering that question.

Wecht has another notch on his resume that few other forensic pathologists have. He is what you would call a celebrity forensic pathologist. In addition to having served as Allegheny County (Pa.) Coroner for 20 years, Wecht has been involved in such high-profile death cases as John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne, Sharon Tate, Legionnaires’ Disease, Sunny von Bulow, Vincent Forster, Laci Peterson, Daniel and Anna Nicole Smith and lots more people that you’ve heard of. Wecht is also a frequent guest on cable news shows and other television programs.

Wecht’s CV is an astonishing 27 pages, single-spaced – including several devoted to teaching appointments, visiting professorships and guest lectures; as well as lists of governmental and political positions; numerous awards; leadership positions in scores of medical and legal societies; board certifications; and books authored -- ten for the general public on forensics and famous deaths and numerous for professionals. Wecht has authored over 550 professional publications. He is the namesake of the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law at Duquesne University. Wecht has performed about 20,000 autopsies since 1957 and reviewed or supervised about twice that number. He now spends his time as a medical/legal consultant and expert witness. Incidentally, he is the father of Judge, now Justice, David Wecht, very recently elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Wecht’s career has not been without controversy. He was twice tried criminally on charges related to allegedly personally benefiting from his work at the Coroner’s office. The cases ended in dropped charges and acquittal and were the subject of federal investigations into whether the charges were politically motivated.

Cyril Wecht was a great interview. Not a good interview. A great interview. He was generous with his time – we spent an hour on the phone on a Saturday afternoon – and provided very thoughtful answers. He was full of fascinating stories, used some words not suitable for a family publication and had an incredible memory for things that happened 60 years ago. But what made my call with Wecht so enjoyable was his passion. For example, he has spent decades railing against the conclusions of the Warren Commission on the death of John F. Kennedy. But despite having discussed this subject a gazillion times, Wecht was still so animated about it that I had to turn down the volume on my phone.

Law School: Why In The World?

Cyril Wecht’s decision to enroll in law school, despite being a doctor at the time, and seemingly all taken care of in the degree department, traces its roots to his younger days. As in really young. Wecht said that, from the day he was born, he was told by his parents that he was going to be a doctor. So that at least explains why he didn’t go to law school first.

As his medical studies went on, Wecht developed an interest in legal medicine. The decision to pull the trigger, and add law to medicine, was made in 1955, during Wecht’s third year of medical school. Wecht had contacted the American Medical Association for assistance with his interest in legal medicine. The AMA put Wecht in touch with the then most prominent M.D./J.D. in the country – Dr. Louis Regan. Fortuitously, at that time, the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association were to hold their first joint conference. Wecht contacted Dr. Regan who invited him to attend the conference in New York City. Despite being besieged, Regan gave Wecht fifteen minutes and provided him an overview of legal medicine. It was there that Wecht made the decision to combine law and medicine – despite that meaning attending law school while a medical resident. And not wanting to be a general practitioner in both fields, Wecht chose to focus on forensic pathology.

Wecht spent two years at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and finished his law degree at the University of Maryland Law School, while serving as a research fellow in forensic pathology in the medical examiner’s office in Baltimore. Wecht described the whole experience in simple terms: “I don’t know how the hell I did it.”

Forensic Pathology: Changes Over The Years

Dr. Cyril Wecht has been figuring out how people died for over a half century. So I’m curious if he ever lays awake at night, thinking about cases, and wondering if his conclusion on cause of death would have been different if he had had the benefit of some technology, now available, that wasn’t at the time.

Wecht surprises me with his answer. It turns out that, with the exception of DNA, “very, very little” has changed over the years in the world of forensic technology. Wecht begins to rattle off the steps in a autopsy and concludes that the basic procedures and questions, to figure out how someone died, are the same as when he started.

But this is not to say that there have been no changes, Wecht tells me. He mentions the attitude of the “things that are expected of you in the legal arena, that are expected of you from the public generally because of what has been portrayed in the world of fiction and what has unfolded in the world of reality vis-à-vis forensic pathology.” Wecht points to certain noted cases, such as J.F.K., O.J. Simpson and Jon Benet Ramsey, as well as television programs, such as CSI, the result of which “lawyers and judges and juries are all looking for things[.]” “I’m not suggesting that forensic pathologists in the past were sloppy, in fact they were giants in the field, but some things maybe you didn’t pay as much attention to and so on given the state of affairs in those years compared to what’s evolved subsequently with the different rules, such as Daubert.”

JFK And The Magic Bullet

Wecht’s involvement in the death of John F. Kennedy goes back 50 years. He is a vocal critic of the Warren Commission’s single (magic) bullet conclusion and Oswald as the lone gunman. Wecht presented a paper in 1965 critiquing the Commission’s findings. Then, in 1978, he testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations as the sole dissenter, among a nine-member forensic pathology panel, that re-examined JFK’s death and supported the single bullet theory. According to Wikipedia, Wecht is the only pathologist, in four official examinations into the death of JFK, who has disagreed with the single bullet theory.

Wecht told me, in very animated fashion, that the Warren Commission’s conclusion would be “laughed out of court, laughed out of court:” “A single bullet, one bullet, seven wounds and two men leaving pieces of itself in four anatomic locations emerging with a total weight loss of 1.5%, completely intact, turning laterally, horizontally, vertically like a @*&%# rollercoaster ride at a big amusement park. I mean it’s absurd but they went along with it including my colleagues covered it up.”

Wecht wasn’t finished: “[T]here is no @*&%# way Connelly is shot 1½ seconds after Kennedy is hit the first time and the best marksman they can come up with took 2.3 seconds from shot-to-shot with that piece of @*&%# weapon and . . . Arlen Specter says ‘hey what if one bullet produced all of these wounds’ so you gotta give him credit intellectually.”

While it has nothing to do with forensics, I’m curious what Wecht thinks is the story behind the assassination. After all, he hasn’t spent half a century debunking the magic bullet theory without forming opinions on the alternative. Wecht is forceful in his answer: It’s us. As Wecht sees it, the CIA – a government unto itself, he calls it -- was bent on eliminating Russia. Kennedy was not, and, in fact, was bent on eliminating the CIA. The CIA, according to Wecht, couldn’t face the prospect of five more years of JFK, followed by eight years of Robert Kennedy. “Thirteen years is a lifetime, man, in the evolution of a country politically,” Wecht exclaims.

Forensic Pathology And Insurance

As a medical-legal consultant and expert (about 2/3 plaintiff and 1/3 defense, give or take, he tells me), Wecht’s work varies, including a heavy dose involving medical malpractice, as well as wrongful death of different types, product liability and worker’s compensation.

Of course I ask him about his role in insurance cases and his involvement is substantial – such as, which of several parties is liable for a death, to determine the responsible insurer. He shared with me a recent trip to St. Lucia involving several crew members who died in the engine room of a ship. The big issue was whether they died from fire or intense heat and where did it emanate from. That went to the question of which piece of equipment was responsible and, therefore, which insurer.

As examples of his work involving coverage, Wecht mentioned life insurance and determining what did a person know about their health when they took out a policy. He also pointed to the need in insurance cases to determine if cause of death was accident versus suicide versus homicide.

How To Live Longer

Anyone who has been involved in 60,000 autopsies must also know something about living. In other words, if you’ve seen how that may people have died, then surely you must know how to avoid – well, at least prolong-- that from happening. So I asked Wecht if there was one thing, just one, that I could do to live longer, what should it be? I was expecting a simple answer – like use less salt or don’t eat Twinkies. But the answer was more detailed than that.

Wecht told me that the best thing – if you have the time and money to spend -- would be to obtain the genetic patterns of your parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, and so on. Then look at what these relatives died from to determine if there is a pattern. If so, correlate that with your diet, find a good internist, have the tests that are appropriate for your age as well as the tests for the diseases for which there is any family history.

Quincy: Does That Really Happen?

One does not speak to Cyril Wecht without asking about the most famous forensic pathologist of them all – Dr. Quincy, of course. Quincy is one of the first television shows about how people died. There is one question about Quincy that I just have to ask. During the opening theme song of the show there is a scene where Jack Klugman, as Quincy, is about to perform an autopsy. There are several police officers standing nearby, there to watch and learn. As soon as Quincy pulls the sheet off the corpse, the officers, one by one, begin to throw up and pass out. So of course I have to ask Wecht the obvious question – does that ever really happen?

Yes it does Wecht says -- although he notes that the scene in Quincy is of course exaggerated. Wecht tells me that he often has people attend autopsies and some throw up or become light-headed. But this is nothing to be ashamed of he is quick to add. Wecht recounted one police officer who attended an autopsy, became light-headed, left the room, tripped and injured himself seriously.

Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D. summed up his life this way in a 2011 Pittsburgh Quarterly article: “I get involved and I open my mouth. That’s all I can do.”

Liability insurance is, by definition, a product that provides financial protection when things don’t turn out as planned. Most of the time when this occurs it’s simply a case of bad luck or because, well, stuff just happens. Essentially, some action was taken and the outcome was one that nobody could have seen coming.

But there are other times when liability claims don’t arise simply because stuff just happens. Instead, the claims are the result of peoples’ actions that were so ill-conceived or Tom foolhardy that a liability claim was as predictable as day following night. When you read liability coverage cases you are bound to come across some of these. They are the cases where all you can do is shake your head in disbelief and ask yourself – Wow, did he REALLY do that? You then walk over to a colleague and say you GOTTA see this. Eventually the incredulous behavior leads to a lawsuit, which leads to an insurance claim, which leads to a coverage dispute, which leads to a reported decision, which leads to the final stage of this insurance circle of life -- an appearance in “Coverage For Dummies.”

I am pleased to present my 8th Annual “Coverage For Dummies” -- a review of the best cases, from the year just-concluded, that demonstrate attempts to secure insurance coverage for the frailty and imperfection of the human brain.

Incidentally, last year I suggested that “Coverage for Dummies” may be over since I suspected that there could never be a “Dummies” case as great as Davler v. Arch Ins. Co. (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2014), where the court held that no coverage was owed to a cosmetics manufacturer when a (female) manager, determined to figure out who left a sanitary napkin in the bathroom and blood around the toilet seat, forced female employees to pull down their underwear so that another (female) employee could inspect whether they were wearing a sanitary napkin. The employment related practices exclusion precluded coverage.

But, alas, “Dummies” was saved from extinction by Blank-Greer v. Tannerite Sports, LLC, No. 13-1266 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2015), which rivals Davler v. Arch. In Blank-Greer, two nimrods, as part of a celebration of the upcoming birth of a child of one of the nimrods, held a party – a “diaper shootout” -- where guests could bring diapers for the new baby and enjoy an afternoon shooting guns. As a grand finale they decided to blow up an old refrigerator. Guests stood behind tables fifty meters away from the refrigerator -- with explosives placed inside. Upon firing at the refrigerator it immediately blew apart and sent shrapnel flying across the yard. A piece of shrapnel hit a guest’s hand, nearly severing it. I know. It takes your breath away. In case you’re wondering, the court held that no coverage was owed because the incident did not arise with respect to the conduct of the insured’s business.

Incidentally, 2015 was a down year for “Dummies.” For whatever reason, it was slim pickins for good “Dummies” cases. That’s just the way it goes sometimes. However, this could be prevented in some way. “Dummies” cases often involve such things as fights, people doing stupid stuff in bars, the use of an automobile for something other than getting from A to B, feuding neighbors and the use of guns. The incidents at issue in these cases generally just don’t happen out of the blue. They often have back stories explaining what led up to them. But so many courts leave these facts out of their opinions. As a result, what could be a great “Dummies” case will never be known, since it reads as a detail-less “assault and battery” or “liquor liability” or “expected or intended” case.

The following additional “Dummies” 2015 cases are in no particular order.

Evanston Insurance Co. v. Haven South Beach, LLC (S.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2015): Pollution Exclusion precluded coverage to insured food and beverage vender for injuries sustained by a customer who was served an alcoholic beverage infused with liquid nitrogen to create a “smoky effect.”

Minden v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co. (8th Cir. May 26, 2015): Neither auto exclusion nor assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage to insured driver, for striking and killing an individual with his car, possibly motivated by the decedent yelling unflattering remarks at the insured-driver, when he could not figure out how to turn off a car alarm with a key fob.

Auto Club Property Casualty Ins. Co. v. B.T. (W.D. Ky. Jan. 12, 2015): No coverage owed to a dad for this father of the year performance. Dad’s 8 year old son was playing with friends and wanted to get some sparklers out of the car. Dad used his keyless remote to open the door but did not follow his son to the car – nor check up on him for the next few hours. It turns out that his son didn’t retrieve just sparklers from the car (as if that would have been OK) but bottle rockets too. One of the kids lit a bottle rocket that hit another in the eye. Coverage for dad denied based on the criminal act exclusion. Nobody will confuse this guy for Ward Cleaver. [This case was featured in “Dummies” 2014. In 2015 the Sixth Circuit reversed – not the dummy-ness; but the lower court’s decision that the criminal act exclusion barred coverage.]

Parler v. North Sea Insurance Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 17, 2015): Not enough factual details to be a “Dummies” case. However, the underlying action involved a bar patron being struck in the face with a bar stool. As frequent as that happens in the movies, you just don’t see it very often in real life coverage cases. Take my word. I did some research on that.

Ford v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2015): Expected or intended exclusion barred coverage to insured for striking his brother-in-law with a ceramic pot. [Insured also alleged that his brother-in-law once stole Christmas presents intended for insured’s children.]

Canon v. Palisades Insurance Company (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 25, 2015): You know an opinion is going to be good when it starts out with this gem: “This case involves a street fight between two groups of combatants, some of whom were employed as telemarketers with two local companies. Not surprisingly, the challenge to fight, the acceptance of that challenge, and negotiations over the combat site were all done telephonically.” Following the rejection of numerous fight locations one was finally agreed upon. However, the fight didn’t take place as scheduled. One group arrived in a car with the occupants carrying baseball bats. The other group, expecting a traditional fist fight, was unarmed, and hurriedly left. However, the court noted that the parties were willing to continue settlement efforts: “The two cars drove to the Skytop Gardens Complex while their occupants made phone calls trying to reschedule the fight.” Sadly, the opinion does not mention what caused these two groups to want to kill each other. Maybe each one tele-marketed the other.

To make a long story short, someone was eventually shot in the head. He filed suit against some of the individuals on the other side. A default judgment was entered in the amount of $65,000. Seeking to satisfy the judgment, the victim then filed an action against the auto insurer for one of the assailant’s parents. The substantive coverage issues were “expected or intended” and “use of an auto.”

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Powell (N.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2015): Intentional act exclusion barred coverage to insured for striking a fellow gambler in the face while playing cards in a casino. I mentioned in the introduction that most assaults have a back story explaining what led up to the altercation. Well, not here. Casino surveillance showed that, three minutes after the victim sat down at the table, the insured stood up, walked around the table, and struck him in the face with his fist. I guess when you saw “hit me” at a blackjack table there’s more than just the risk of going over 21.