Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Murder of insured by beneficiary. If A gives B a box of candy and then is murdered by B, it is clear that the title to the candy does not then revert to A's estate. On the other hand, it is equally well settled, by the weight of authority, that if A, by will, leaves property to B and is then murdered by B, B will not be permitted to take a beneficial interest in the property devised or bequeathed.

Which of these cases does life insurance resemble? Assume that A insures his life in favor of B, who murders him ten years thereafter. Shall we say that B's interest became absolute when the contract is made, or, as in the case of the will, upon A's death? In this respect, life insurance policies resemble wills. B cannot recover the insurance. This rule applies though the beneficiary has not been designated unconditionally and the power to change the beneficiary is reserved. However, the strongest case in the beneficiary's favor is that wherein he is unconditionally designated. Nevertheless, he fails in this case also.

Transfer of interest. The beneficiary, unconditionally designated, may transfer his or her interest without the consent of the insured unless, by statute, such consent is required, as, for example, where the beneficiary is the wife of the insured and the consent of the latter, as husband, is made necessary. The beneficiary's right may be regarded as a chose in action for this purpose.11

Death of beneficiary. To return to our box of

40 N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591.

41 Hewlett v. Home for Incurables, 74 Md. 350, 17 L. R. A. 447.

candy, if A gives it to B and then B dies, it goes to B's personal representative and does not revert to A. The same rule applies, by the weight of authority, where A procures insurance on his life for B. However, owing to the seeming injustice of letting such an investment go to the wife's relatives when A has sunk his money into it and may not have been on good terms with the persons who would otherwise reap the benefit, many courts have held that the right in B terminates with her death, on the ground that this was the intention of the parties, and such is the rule by statute in certain states.

42. Same subject-Rights of beneficiary subject to a condition. It is extremely common for a man to procure life insurance payable to B, the wife of the insured, if living, or otherwise to C and D, their children. Here it may be observed that the insured reserves no right to change the beneficiaries, though the rights of C and D are contingent.

After making this wise provision for his family it is, regrettably, too common that the husband and wife find themselves in financial embarrassment a few years thereafter and decide to secure the surrender value of the policy. But where the insurer allows a surrender he must generally obtain a release from a beneficiary unconditionally designated. It would seem, therefore, that unless C and D join in the release and are legally capable of doing so, their rights will not be defeated by a release given by the husband and wife. The insurer would take such a release at his peril. If B outlived the husband, the insurer would be protected, but not otherwise. The

difficulty in this case is further increased when the insurance is payable, if the wife be not living, to the children generally. This would include those born and unborn at the time the policy is issued.

43. Same subject-Right to change the beneficiary reserved.—In many cases, the policy designates someone as beneficiary, with right of revocation reserved to the insured. It might be held that B here takes a property right which differs from that of a beneficiary unconditionally designated in but one respect, namely, that the right may be revoked, and that until revocation B has a property right. But the rule appears to be the other way. B's right is regarded not as a property interest, but as a mere possibility.

This is the rule which is generally applied to all beneficiaries in mutual benefit associations. Such associations are organized, in theory, not for purely commercial reasons, but for the mutual benefit of their members. Their purposes are social and benevolent. Hence, we find that the payment of a socalled death benefit is looked upon not as a matter of strict legal necessity, but as evidence of fraternal affection. Nevertheless, there are limits to such affection on the part of members. Though a daughter designated as beneficiary pays all dues and assessments for several years for the sake of retaining her mother's membership in a mutual benefit association, the mother may, notwithstanding, deprive her daughter of all interest and designate another person as beneficiary and thus leave the daughter without remedy unless there has been a contract made

42

between the daughter and mother binding the mother not to change the beneficiary. This may appear harsh, but the time may never come when persons, who donate their property in the hope of having the donees give more in return than such donees receive, will be entitled to relief at law.

In many instances, the association requires a member to comply with certain formalities before making a change of beneficiaries. Thus, the member may be required to produce and surrender the certificate. Such rules may be enforced by the association.

In many cases of this character the first beneficiary refuses to surrender the certificate. But if the association does not object to a failure to comply with such requirements, the prior beneficiary cannot protect himself by setting up such regulations in his own behalf. Such provisions are designed for the protection only of the association. In many cases, the association pays the money into court and allows the controversy to proceed between the rival beneficiaries. Not only are such provisions of no protection to the prior beneficiary, but it has been held that where the member does all that he can do to make a change, the association will be denied any defense on this ground, if no other steps than mere office details of the association remain to be completed when the member dies.43

But suppose that the change from B as beneficiary to Cas beneficiary has been induced by fraud, or that the member was insane when he made the alteration.

42 Jory v. Supreme Council A. L. H., 105 Cal. 20, 26 L. R. A. 733, 38 Pac. 524, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

43 McGowan v. Order of Foresters, 104 Wis. 173, 80 N. W. 603.

Let us assume, furthermore, that if no one else is designated, the money will go to the personal representative of the member. Has B sufficient interest here to allow him to object to the fraud or set up the insanity? Or, is the personal representative the only one who can raise the question? It has been held that B has sufficient interest for this purpose. 44

44. Same subject-Surrender value.-Where a beneficiary has been unconditionally designated and all the premiums have been paid by the insured, who is entitled to the money paid by the insurer upon the surrender of the policy? The answer to this question is that the rule appears to be that unless the contract makes provision for surrender value, or unless a statute creates it, the right to any payment on surrender does not exist. The rights of the insured and beneficiary would cease on failure to pay a premium after it falls due; or, at least, no return of cash could be demanded.

Therefore, since surrender value is purely a matter of contract, it is governed entirely by agreement. But it is possible that the policy may provide for surrender value without specifying to whom the money is to be paid. In such a case the party entitled to receive the money paid by the insurer must be determined solely by the agreement among the parties at the time of the surrender. When the beneficiary is unconditionally designated he may demand at least a share of the money, because his consent is generally necessary to make the surrender effective.45

44 Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Frank, 133 Mich. 232, 94 N. W. 731, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

45 D'Arcy v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 108 Tenn. 567, 69 S. W. 768.

« ZurückWeiter »