With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be no intent to kill by these physical means. The second alternative definition of insanity, as an incapacity to appreciate the moral character of the act, has had a history nearly as long. The cases commonly trace its source in American law to the statement in Life Insurance Company v. Terry, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 580, 591 (1872), that if the insured causes his death “when his reasoning faculties are so far impaired that he is not able to understand the moral character ... of the act he is about to commit” the death is not by the decedent’s own hand within the meaning of a policy exclusion. The plaintiff urges us to adopt this definition and cites authority from a minority of jurisdictions that have done so. E.g., Garmon v. General American Life Ins. Co., 624 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Hathaway’s Adm’r v. National Life Ins. Co.,

A: holding proof of such moral incapacity sufficient to defeat the exclusion
B: holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion
C: holding exclusion was harmless error
D: holding exclusion was not ambiguous
A.