Boehne v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 29 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 34258. |
| Parties | BOEHNE v. GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. By the great weight of authority, a change of beneficiary in an old-line insurance policy in which insured reserves the right to make such change may be effectuated without a strict and formal compliance with common policy provision which requires that 'Every change of beneficiary * * * must be made by written notice to the company at its home office accompanied by the policy, and shall take effect only when endorsed on this policy by the company.'
2. Rule that substantial compliance only with such a condition is sufficient to effectuate the change is based upon ground that condition is inserted in policy for protection of insurer and is waived by it upon payment by it of proceeds of policy into court to abide court's determination of ownership thereof, or upon its otherwise manifesting its assent to such change.
3. There is also authority for viewpoint that receipt of notice and policy and endorsement of change thereon by insurer involve ministerial acts only, which insurer cannot refuse to perform after death of insured if, prior thereto, the latter has done everything reasonably in his power to effect a change of beneficiary.
4. Reasons underlying foregoing principles summarized in Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Williams, 284 Ill.App. 222, 1 N.E.2d 247.
5. Where insured has an unrestricted right to change beneficiary in old-line policy and has executed notice thereof and forwarded it with policy to insurer, but dies before their arrival at home office of insurer or before insurer can act thereon, insured will be deemed to have substantially complied with above-described policy provision relative to change of beneficiary.
6. Actual forwarding of notice and policy by insured is held to take effect immediately upon insured's placing in motion the machinery for transmitting same to insurer's home office.
7. Where insurer has furnished soliciting agent or other agency with blank forms for purpose of assisting policyholders in making changes of beneficiary, acts of such agent or agency with reference thereto are regarded as acts of insurer, and such agent or agency in such instances represents insurer rather than insured.
8. Where evidence disclosed that prior to his death insured had executed change-of-beneficiary form furnished to him by insurer through its soliciting agent and cashier and had left same, together with the policy, with them, with instructions to insert date in notice and thereafter forward same to insurer's home office upon notification by insured that his divorce had been granted; and where insured subsequently notified soliciting agent that his divorce had been granted and to insert date in notice and forward it with policy at once to insurer's home office, Held that such acts and instructions on part of insured were sufficient to establish that insured had set in motion the transmission of notice and policy to insurer's home office and had done everything reasonably possible to effectuate the desired change, and that such change had been effectuated thereby notwithstanding failure of agent to deposit notice and policy in mail until subsequent to insured's death the following morning.
9. Where evidence disclosed that insurer had furnished a soliciting agent and its cashier with blank change-of-beneficiary forms to assist policyholders in making changes of beneficiary; had given specific instructions to such agent and cashier as to manner and method to be followed in assisting policyholders in bringing about such changes and had delivered receipts for such notices and policies in name of insurer, Held that such agent and cashier were agents of insurer rather than of insured in performing the described acts.
10. In fraternal benefit insurance policies Minnesota is committed to the doctrine that a change of beneficiary therein must be made in compliance with the statutes and by-laws of the insurer relative thereto. Such cases are distinguished from the instant case because of the general principle frequently enunciated therein that the fraternal society cannot waive provisions of the statutes.
11. Instant case is the first in which this court has passed upon the effect of the described restrictive provision in old-line insurance policy, and decision herein brings this court into harmony with majority of rulings on this subject.
12. An agent of a party to an action who represented the survivor of two contracting parties in transacting certain business is not precluded from testifying to conversations relative thereto between him and the other contracting party, since deceased, if such agent is not a party to the action or interested in its outcome.
13--14. New trial should not be granted for error, if any, in admission of evidence if other evidence properly admitted is sufficient to justify verdict and there has been no prejudice to the substantial rights of the adverse party, or, in the alternative, if such evidence improperly admitted related to matters immaterial to the issue.
15. Insertion of the date in an instrument otherwise complete subsequent to its execution and pursuant to express instructions from maker thereof does not change the effect or constitute an alteration of such instrument so as to render it inadmissible in evidence.
16. Numerous contentions advanced by defendants on appeal considered, but not discussed in detail, found without merit insofar as they relate to material issues here.
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; John A. Weeks, Judge.
Ben R. Toensing, of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Eugene A. Rerat and R. F. Merriam, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Action for reformation of a life insurance policy upon the life of Alvin C. Lindahl, who met accidental death September 20, 1944, and to recover the proceeds of such policy. Plaintiff, who was the intended wife of insured, alleges that prior to his death he had effected a change of beneficiary whereby she became the beneficiary entitled to the proceeds of such policy upon his death.
Defendants Carl J. Lindahl and Mathilda Lindahl, his wife, parents of insured, originally were designated beneficiaries in the policy and on the face thereof were still so designated at the time of insured's death. In their joint answer they deny that a change of beneficiary had been effected prior to insured's death, and they claim the proceeds of the policy.
Defendant Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, the insurer answered, admitting liability for the amount of the policy, but declining otherwise to enter into the controversy. It asked leave to pay the proceeds into court pending determination of this litigation. Pursuant to stipulation, the court made its order directing the company to deposit in escrow the amount of the policy with the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis to abide the court's determination herein. This was done, and the action was dismissed as to the company.
For convenience, the word 'defendants' will be understood to refer to defenants Carl J. Lindahl and Mathilda Lindahl, and defendant Guardian Life Insurance Company of America will be referred to as the 'company.'
At the trial a jury was called at defendants' request. At the close of the testimony the court submitted to it for determination the following questions:
'1. Did the insured, Alvin C. Lindahl, deceased, intend to change the beneficiary in his policy of insurance with the Guardian Life Insurance Company, No. 777144, so as to name the plaintiff beneficiary in said policy?
The jury answered both questions in the affirmative. The trial court thereupon made findings and ordered judgment for plaintiff. From its subsequent order denying defendants' motion for amended findings or a new trial, this appeal is taken.
The facts with reference to the policy and the change of beneficiaries therein are as follows: On July 8, 1942, the company made and delivered to Alvin C. Lindahl its policy No. 777144 insuring his life for $5,000. The policy contained provision for payment of an additional $5,000 in case of death by accident and provided that insured might change beneficiaries therein at any time without consent of the original beneficiaries or the company. The beneficiaries first named were Carl J. Lindahl and Mathilda Lindahl, his wife, parents of insured. An additional $5,000 policy with identical provisions, also naming the parents of insured as beneficiaries, was taken out by insured at the same time. No claim is made that insured changed the beneficiaries in this second policy. The proceeds thereof have been paid to his parents, and the policy is not in litigation here.
The first policy, No. 777144, here involved, contained the following provision with reference to change of beneficiaries:
During all the times involved, Remole & Remole, a copartnership with offices in the Foshay Tower in Minneapolis, were general agents of the company. In their Minneapolis office at such times Reuben S. Remole was employed as an agent...
To continue reading
Request your trial