Allen v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BALDWIN, J.
• Citation: Allen v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 72 Conn. 693, 45 A. 955 (Conn. 1900)
• Decision Date: 04 April 1900
• Parties: ALLEN v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. et al.

45 A. 955

72 Conn. 693

ALLEN

v. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 4, 1900.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action by George H. Allen against the Hartford Life Insurance Company and Mary M. Allen, administratrix of Clarence W. Allen, deceased, to recover on a policy of life insurance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Mary M. Allen, administratrix, appeals. Affirmed.

John J. Jennings, for appellant.

John R. Buck, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. In 1884, Clarence W. Allen, then 29 years old, took out the policy in question in this suit on his own life. It was for $5,000, and made payable on his death to "George H. Allen, if living; otherwise to said Clarence W. Allen's legal representatives." Shortly afterwards he delivered it as a gift to George H. Allen, who was his only brother, and then 21 years of age, and to a considerable extent dependent on him for advice and aid in securing employment. Neither was indebted to the other, nor had they any business relations, nor was there any agreement that each should insure his life for the benefit of the other, though afterwards George did for a time insure his life in favor of Clarence. The latter insurance George allowed to expire before 1893, in which year Clarence married. Clarence died in 1898, leaving a widow and child. He had continued to pay the premiums on the policy annually, except from 1885 to 1890, when they were paid out of the funds of a co-partnership then existing between the brothers. During that period George kept the policy in the partnership safe, and there it remained after the partnership was dissolved in 1890, the business at the old stand being continued by Clarence, although George thereafter had a safe of his own in another place, where he conducted his business. In 1895 Clarence declared his intention of procuring a transfer of the policy to his wife and child, and obtained from the insurance company a blank form to be signed by George for that purpose. He never, however, mentioned the matter to George, nor took any further steps in that direction. At the time of his death he owed a small sum to George, which was subsequently paid by his administratrix. His estate was not a large one. There is nothing in any of these facts which can vary the contract expressed in the policy. That is for the payment of the money, upon Clarence's death, to the plaintiff, if living. He was then living, and there is no sufficient equity in favor of the widow or child to debar him from insisting on his legal right. The gift of the policy was perfected by its delivery, and its subsequent deposit in the partnership safe, the payment of the premiums for a few years by the partnership, and its being left in the same safe after the firm was dissolved, are wholly insufficient to constitute a surrender or relinquishment in favor of Clarence. Had Clarence asked George to execute the form of assignment which was procured from the insurance company, George would have been under no duty to comply with the request. A gift, when once executed by delivery, is irrevocable.

The administratrix contends that there was no sufficient proof of gift. The delivery of the obligation, whether absolute or conditional, of a third party, for the payment of money, to the person named as payee, is at least prima facie evidence of an intent to invest the payee with the beneficial right of action upon it. The trial court has found in this case that the policy was in fact delivered as a gift, and there is nothing in the subordinate facts that are set out which is inconsistent with this conclusion.

It is urged that George had an insurable interest In Clarence's life at the date of the...