Bissell v. Gentry
| Decision Date | 20 May 1966 |
| Citation | 403 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | Gladys BISSELL (known as Gladys Whitfield), Appellant, v. E. P. GENTRY, Administrator, etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
Charles M. Gabhart and Manny H. Frockt, Louisville, for appellant.
Alfred W. Minish, Carrolton, for appellee.
FRANK A. ROPKE, Special Commissioner.
On September 14, 1956, Gladys Whitfield Bissell was granted an absolute divorce from George Fitch Bissell by a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
The judgment provided for restoration, under the provisions of KRS 403.060, by each to the other of property received one from the other and not otherwise disposed of at the commencement of the action. This statute reads as follows:
'Upon final judgment of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, each party shall be restored all the property, not disposed of at the beginning of the action, that he or she obtained from or through the other before or during the marriage, and in consideration of the marriage.'
For some time prior to September 14, 1956, George F. Bissell was employed by the Huber Motor Express Company, and he remained in its employ until his death on August 18, 1963, shortly following an automobile accident. During his employment a policy of insurance was issued to him by Republic National Life Insurance Company for which the employer paid. This was a part of so-called 'fringe benefits,' a part of his contract of employment. This policy was in the sum of $4,500.00 with double indemnity for accidental death. The beneficiary named in the policy was Gladys Bissell, the then wife of George F. Bissell, and the name of the beneficiary was never changed following the divorce of September 14, 1956.
Following the death of George F. Bissell, E. P. Gentry was appointed by the Carroll County Court as Administrator of the estate of George F. Bissell and qualified as such.
Subsequently both the administrator and the ex-wife of the insured, Gladys Whitfield Bissell, now know as Gladys Whitfield, made claim upon the Republic National Insurance Company for payment of the policy. The insurance company paid the proceeds of $9,000.00 into court in this action, naming both claimants as defendants therein, and prayed the court to determine the rights of the parties thereto.
The court, in a well reasoned opinion, set out its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment awarding the proceeds of the policy to E. P. Gentry, Administrator of the estate of George F. Bissell, and adjudged costs against Gladys Whitfield.
This court has held consistently that the interest of a spouse as beneficiary comes squarely within the restoration provision of KRS 403.060, and as a result, every right of a divorced party as beneficiary of a policy of life insurance on the life of the other is extinguished, except in cases where the policy on the life of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields
...policy on her husband's life despite the failure of the husband to change her designation as such following the divorce.3 Bissell v. Gentry, 403 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.1966); Salisbury v. Bick, 368 S.W.2d 317 (Ky.1963); Warren v. Spurlock's Administrator, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d 858 (1943); Schauber......
-
N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Terry
...usual treatment of assets after divorce where insurance premiums were paid by the other spouse." D.E. 64 at 8 (citing Bissell v. Gentry, 403 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Ky. 1966)). Wife provides a partial quote from Bissell to this effect, but the context of the Bissell opinion makes clear that the Cour......
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields, 1483.
...S.W.2d 317 (1963). A divorced wife's rights as a beneficiary were recently considered by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Bissell v. Gentry, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 15 (1966). The opinion of Commissioner Ropke included the following "This court has held consistently that the interest of a spouse as......
-
Morgan v. United States
...provision of K.R.S. 403.060 clearly terminates the interest of a spouse named as a beneficiary in a policy of life insurance. Bissell v. Gentry, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 15; Salisbury v. Vick, Ky., 368 S.W.2d 317; Warren v. Spurlock, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d It would therefore appear that the plainti......