Dennis v. Modern Brotherhood of America

• Citation: 95 S.W. 967,119 Mo. App. 210
• Parties: DENNIS et al. v. MODERN BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICA.
• Decision Date: 18 June 1906
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

95 S.W. 967

119 Mo. App. 210

DENNIS et al. v. MODERN BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICA.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 18, 1906.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1906.

1. INSURANCE — BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS — WHO MAY BE BENEFICIARIES.

No one can become a beneficiary in a fraternal benefit society who does not belong to one of the classes of persons named as beneficiaries in the statute.

2. SAME—CONFLICT OF LAWS—FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

Where a beneficial society depends for its power to do business on the statutes of two states, one where it is organized, and the other wherein it is permitted to do business as a foreign corporation, the statute of the latter state controls as to who may be beneficiaries in cases originating in such latter state.

3. SAME—STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 1408, relating to beneficial associations and providing that beneficiaries must be "families, heirs, blood relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent on, the member," and a subsequent section permitting foreign associations who come "within the description as set forth in section 1408" aforesaid to do business in the state, a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state must bring itself within the description of the local associations in this state, and must have for its object the benefit of the same class or classes of beneficiaries named in the statute.

4. SAME—EXEMPTIONS—SUICIDE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 7896, provides that, in all suits on policies of insurance on life hereafter issued by any company doing business in this state to a citizen thereof, it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide unless it is shown that insured contemplated suicide at the time he made application for his policy. Held, that a foreign association organized under a statute including legatees and legal representatives of the member as classes who may be beneficiaries, in contravention of said section 1408, was not entitled to the defense of suicide under said section 7896.

5. SAME—VESTED INTEREST.

A beneficiary in a certificate of a fraternal benefit association has no vested interest in such certificate.

6. SAME—DEATH OF JOINT BENEFICIARY.

The rights of beneficiaries under a certificate in a foreign beneficial association, which was in point of fact a fraternal association under the laws of the state where organized, and whose organization, mode of payment of benefits, and of raising funds therefor was in such respects in keeping with the law of this state relating to such associations, even though all its classes of beneficiaries were not identical with those named in the statute of our state, are the rights recognized by the law applicable to such certificates, and hence the interest of one of such beneficiaries ceased at her death.

7. SAME — APPOINTMENT OF BENEFICIARIES — INTENTION OF MEMBER—CONSTRUCTION.

In construing a certificate in a beneficial association, the intention of the member is the controlling element in respect to the appointment of beneficiaries.

8. SAME.

Where a certificate in a beneficial association was issued in accordance with a written application for membership, wherein the member named as his beneficiaries one of his daughters for a certain amount and another daughter for a certain amount, the amount of the benefit applied for being the total of such sums, the words of appointment used in the certificate were to be regarded as the same as if the fund was payable to the member's children, naming them, and the survivor of such children was entitled to the entire fund.

9. SAME—ESTOPPEL.

A beneficiary under a certificate in a beneficial association which, because the statute of the state in which it was organized permitted the naming of beneficiaries other than those permitted by our statute, was not entitled as a beneficial association to the defense of suicide, was not estopped to avoid such defense because the member entered into the contract with the association as such at reduced rates, on easy terms, and enjoyed its privileges as such member.

10. SAME—STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Rev. St. 1899, § 7896, providing that, in all suits on life policies issued by any company doing business in the state to a citizen thereof, it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide unless it appears that he contemplated suicide at the time he made application for the policy, is not confined to insurance on the old line life plan, but is broad enough to cover any life insurance not withdrawn from its application by some other statute.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; Nat M. Shelton, Judge.

Action by Anna O. Dennis and another against the Modern Brotherhood of America. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

T. A. Sherwood and Kinley & Kinley, for appellant. B. L. Robinson, N. A. Franklin, Campbell & Ellison, and Higbee & Mills, for respondents.

ELLISON, J.

The defendant issued to John P. Dennis, on December 3, 1900, what is known as a beneficiary certificate of life insurance in the sum of $2,000. The beneficiaries named to receive that sum at his death were his two daughters, Anna and Elsie. In July, 1901, Elsie died intestate. In March, 1904, Dennis, the father, committed suicide. Afterwards A. F. Keene was made administrator of Elsie's estate, and was also made guardian of Anna, as well as curator of her estate. It was not charged that Dennis contemplated suicide when the certificate or policy was issued to him, nor were the premiums which he had paid deposited in court by defendant. The defendant's answer denies all liability. The trial court found for plaintiff and rendered judgment accordingly.

1. The defendant is alleged to be a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Iowa and doing business in this state, having complied with the provisions of our statute in reference to permission to prosecute its business here. One point for decision is whether the certificate in question shall be considered a benefit certificate, governed by our law applicable to fraternal benefit societies, or is it in effect such life insurance as is not entitled to the privileges and exemptions granted to fraternal associations? If it belongs to the former class, suicide is a defense; and if to the latter, it is not a defense, since it is not pretended that Dennis contemplated such an act when he took out the certificate. Section 7896, Rev. St. 1899. It is now understood as settled law that no one can become a beneficiary in a fraternal benefit society who does not belong to some one of the classes of persons named as beneficiaries in the statute. Masonic Ben. Ass'n v. Bunch, 109 Mo. 560, 19 S. W. 25; Keener v. Grand Lodge, 38 Mo. App. 543; Herzberg v. Brotherhood, 110 Mo. App. 328, 85 S. W. 986.

2. In cases where a society may depend for its power to do business on the statutes of two states, one where it is organized and the other wherein it is permitted to do business as a foreign corporation, the statute of the latter will control as to who can become beneficiaries in cases originating in the latter. Baltzell v. Modern Woodmen, 98 Mo. App. 153, 71 S. W. 1071.

3. The character of a fraternal beneficiary association as authorized in this state is set forth in section 1408, Rev. St. 1899, wherein beneficiaries are stated to be "families, heirs, blood relatives, affianced husband or affianced wife of, or to persons dependent upon, the member." Foreign associations are authorized to do business in this state, who come "within the description as set forth in section 1408" aforesaid. It follows that, since no foreign association could do business here without the authority of this state, it must bring itself within the terms of such authority; that is to say, it must bring itself within the description of the local associations in this state, which means they must have for their object the benefit of the same class or classes of beneficiaries that are named in our statutes. Certainly no one can be a beneficiary in this state, whether in a local or foreign association, who is not recognized by our statute. Defendant's home is alleged to be in Iowa, and, while the Iowa statute names many of the same classes as beneficiaries which are named in ours, yet it also names others of a substantially different class. It permits the insured member to name legatees as well as his legal representatives to become beneficiaries. Here there is a radical difference between the statutes of the two states. Baltzell v. Modern Woodmen, supra. In Herzberg v. Modern Brotherhood, 110 Mo. App. 328, 85 S. W. 986 (an Iowa association), the beneficiary named in the certificate was the member's legal representative, and we held that it was not authorized by our statute, and that the insurance was effective as general life insurance so far as to not be entitled to the exemptions given to our associations.

4. But that case involved a class, recognized by the foreign statute, but not permitted by ours, while in this case the beneficiaries (daughters of the member) are recognized by ours. So, though our decision in that case be conceded to be a correct interpretation of the law, the defendant, notwithstanding the case of Baltzell v. Modern Woodmen, contends that, though the foreign law authorizes the foreign association to issue certificates to classes of beneficiaries, some of which are not recognized by the domestic law, yet, if such association only does business with the classes which are recognized by the domestic law, it is a fraternal benefit association under the...