Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Sterling

• Decision Date: 08 February 1962
• Citation: 15 A.D.2d 334,224 N.Y.S.2d 146
• Parties: AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth STERLING, Daphne Sterling, Defendants-Appellants, and Rebecca Greenberg, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 146

224 N.Y.S.2d 146

15 A.D.2d 334

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth STERLING, Daphne Sterling, Defendants-Appellants and Rebecca Greenberg, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Feb. 8, 1962.

Daniel J. Madigan, New York City, of counsel (Burton B. Turkus, New York City, attorney) for defendants-appellants.

Leonard R. Glass, New York City, of counsel (Harold Greenberg, New York City, with him on the brief; Glass & Greenapple, New York City, attorneys) for defendant-respondent.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, McNALLY, STEVENS and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Deceased was the holder of a certificate in the sum of $5,000 of a group insurance policy, as an employee of Shearson, Hammill & Company. Her daughters, the defendants Sterling, were the beneficiaries. Upon leaving her position, deceased was notified by the insurer that her participation in the group policy would expire May 1, 1960, but that she had the option to replace the participation with an individual life policy in the sum of $2,000. She made an application for such a policy, paid the first premium and named her mother, the defendant Greenberg, as beneficiary of this new policy. She died on April 25, 1960, while the certificate was still in effect. The daughters and the mother of deceased made claim to the proceeds. The insurer has paid the proceeds, some $5,216, into court, and the claimants both moved for summary judgment.

It is true that, where no issue exists between the insurer and the claimed beneficiary, the terms or conditions of the policy in regard to change of beneficiary need not be complied with (Considine v. Considine, 255 App.Div. 876, 7 N.Y.S.2d 834). This does not mean that in any situation where the insurer declines to choose between rival claimants and pays the proceeds into court the court...