Slocum v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1923
• Parties: SLOCUM v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

245 Mass. 565

139 N.E. 816

SLOCUM

v.METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

June 7, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Philip J. O'Connell, Judge.

Action of contract by William L. Slocum, as administrator of the estate of Lillian E. Miller, deceased, against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, to recover on a policy of life insurance. The court found for the plaintiff, after trial on agreed facts without a jury, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

C. R. Johnson and C. W. Johnson, both of Worcester, for plaintiff.

J. M. Thayer, A. H. Bullock, and J. J. Hurley, all of Worcester, for defendant.

DE COURCY, J.

This is an action of contract on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff's intestate, Lillian E. Miller. On November 26, 1920, she was shot and killed by her husband, Charles Miller, who at that time was the beneficiary named in the policy. The only question raised by the defendant is whether said administrator is entitled to the proceeds of the policy; the insured having died leaving no issue.

Admittedly Charles Miller would be debarred from acquiring the proceeds if he should bring an action in his own name, under G. L. c. 175, § 125. It would be contrary to public policy to permit a beneficiary who has feloniously taken the life of the insured to recover on the policy. New York Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591, 6 Sup. Ct. 877, 29 L. Ed. 997;Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Shane, 98 Ark. 132, 135 S. W. 836;Supreme Lodge v. Menkhausen, 209 Ill. 277, 70 N. E. 567,65 L. R. A. 508, 101 Am. St. Rep. 239;Schmidt v. Northern Life Association, 112 Iowa, 41, 83 N. W. 800,51 L. R. A. 141, 84 Am. St. Rep. 323;Anderson v. Parker, 152 N. C. 1, 67 S. E. 53;Filmore v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 82 Ohio St. 208, 92 N. E. 26,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 675, 137 Am. St. Rep. 778;Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Weightman, 61 Okl. 106, 160 Pac. 629, L. R. A. 1917B, 1210;Murchison v. Murchison (Tex. Civ. App.) 203 S. W. 423;Johnston v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 85 W. Va. 70, 100 S. E. 865, 7 A. L. R. 823; Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] 1 Q. B. 147; 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 727, note.

In determining whether any one other than the beneficiary can recover on a policy, the effect of G. L. c. 175, § 125, must be considered. This statute, so far as here applicable, provides:

‘If a policy of insurance is effected by any person on his own life * * * in favor of a person other than himself having an insurable interest therein, the lawful beneficiary thereof * * * shall be entitled to its proceeds against the creditors and representatives of the person effecting the same; and the person to whom a policy of life or endowment insurance, issued subsequent to April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, is made payable may maintain an action thereon in his own name.’

The provision therein entitling the beneficiary to the proceeds of the policy as against creditors of the insured has been embodied in our insurance law since St. 1844, c. 82, § 2. The beneficiary could not maintain an action on the policy in his own name, however, until St. 1894, c. 225. Wright v. Vermont Life Ins. Co., 164 Mass. 302, 41 N. E. 303. That the 1894 statute, giving to the beneficiary a right of direct action against the insurer on the policy of insurance, changed only the procedural and not the substantial rights of the parties; and that the right of the executor or administrator of the insured to maintain such an action is not taken away by the statute, seem settled by Brown v. Greenfield Life Association, 172 Mass. 498, 53 N. E. 129. See, also, Wright v. Vermont Life Ins. Co., supra; Dean v. American Legion of Honor, 156 Mass. 435, 439, 31 N. E. 1;Lorando v. Gethro, 228 Mass. 181, 187, 117 N. E. 185, 1 A. L. R. 1374. In considering the administrator's right apart from said statute, we lay to one side the cases arising out of membership in fraternal or mutual benefit associations. These rest on the contract and bylaws of the society, and the nature of a member's right therein, to determine who shall take in the place of the debarred beneficiary. See Schmidt v. Northern Life Association, supra; Supreme Lodge v. Menkhausen, supra; Sharpless v. Grant Lodge, 135 Minn. 35, 159 N. W. 1086, L. R. A. 1917B, 670.

Where the policy has been issued by a private company the weight of authority is in favor of allowing the administrator of the insurer to recover. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Shane, supra; Anderson v. Parker, supra; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Weightman, supra; Murchison v. Murchison, supra; 14 Ann. Cas. 99, note; 7 A. L. R. 828, note. As was said by Lord Esher, M. R., in Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Found Life Association, supra, at pages 152, 153:

‘That the person who commits murder, or any person claiming under him or her, should be allowed to benefit by his or her criminal act, would no doubt be contrary to public policy. But this doctrine ought not to be stretched beyond what is necessary for the protection of the public; and if the matter can be dealt with so that such person should not be benefited, I do not see any reason why the defendants in such a case should be allowed to say, though they might have received premiums perhaps for thirty years and still retained the same, the public policy forbade their paying the sum of money which they had contracted to pay. It seems to me that this question of public policy does not arise as between the executors and the defendants. The question arises at a later stage. When the money is in the hands of the executors, the question arises how, under the circumstances, they must deal with it.’

The right of the administrator is ordinarily based on the creation of a resulting trust in favor of the estate of the insured. 2 Joyce on Insurance (2d Ed.) § 833; Johnson, Adm'r, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 85 W. Va. 70, 73, 100 S. E. 865, 7 A. L. R. 823, and cases cited. See Bancroft v. Russell, 157 Mass. 47, 31 N. E. 710;Shea v. Massachusetts Benefit Association, 160 Mass. 289, 35 N. E. 855,39 Am. St. Rep. 475.

Since the argument of this case the policy has been filed with us, and it has been agreed that it may become part of the record. It is an endowment policy, dated July 22, 1912, payable to the insured, whose name then was Lillian E. White, at the end of 20 years. The company further agreed therein:

‘Subject to the conditions aforesaid, if the insured shall die prior to the date of the maturity of the endowment, to pay upon receipt of proofs of the...