Beene v. Gibraltar Indus. Life Ins. Co., 17383.

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: FLANAGAN
• Citation: Beene v. Gibraltar Indus. Life Ins. Co., 116 Ind. App. 290, 63 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. App. 1945)
• Decision Date: 05 November 1945
• Docket Number: No. 17383.,17383.
• Parties: BEENE v. GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIAL LIFE INS. CO. et al.

116 Ind.App. 290

63 N.E.2d 299

BEENE

v.GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIAL LIFE INS. CO. et al.

No. 17383.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Nov. 5, 1945.

Appeal from Marion Municipal Court; Harry R. Champ, Judge.

Action by M. Wilson Beene against The Gibraltar Industrial Life Insurance Company on a policy insuring the life of Hattie Jones, deceased, in which Hazel Utterback, administratrix of deceased's estate, filed a claim to the proceeds of the policy by way of interpleader and defendant insurance company paid the amount of the policy into court for the benefit of the party found entitled thereto. Judgment for the administratrix, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, with instructions.John Browder and Howard R. Hooper, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Henry R. Wilson, Jr., of Indianapolis, for appellees.

FLANAGAN, Judge.

This is an action by appellant against appellee, the Gibraltar Industrial Life Insurance Company, on an insurance policy which insured the life of one Hattie Jones, deceased. Appellee, Hazel Utterback, as administratrix of the estate of Hattie Jones, filed by way of interpleader her claim to the proceeds of the policy. The insurance company paid the amount of the policy into court for the benefit of whomsoever the court found entitled to it. Hereafter when appellee is referred to the reference will be to appellee Hazel Utterback, administratrix of the estate of Hattie Jones.

Judgment was for appellee. The sole error assigned upon appeal is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial which challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the legality of the decision.

The evidence, which is largely stipulated and entirely undisputed, may be summarized as follows:

On December 24, 1942, one Curtiss James Jones shot and killed his wife, Hattie Jones. At that time there was in force upon her life the involved policy of insurance in which he was the named beneficiary. Thereafter he was indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter. Appellant, an attorney, was employed to defend Jones in the murder trial and received in part payment of his fee an assignment of Jones' interest in the involved policy.

The question is whether Jones forfeited his rights in the policy by killing the insured. If he did not, his assignee, the appellant, is entitled to recover. If he did, appellant, is entitled to recover for the insured's estate. Based solidly on the requirements of public policy and fortified by the maxim that a person should not be permitted to profit from his own...