Burnham v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 10 September 1936 |
| Citation | 295 Mass. 387,3 N.E.2d 754 |
| Parties | BURNHAM v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bill in equity by Hannah T. Burnham against the Prudential Insurance Company of America and others. From a decree plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Essex County Williams, Judge.
R. B Owen, of Boston, for appellant.
J. J. Gaffney, of Boston, for appellee Burnham.
The plaintiff in this bill in equity seeks to obtain the proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of her son who died March 29, 1934. His widow, who is named in the policy as beneficiary, and the insurance company, which issued the policy, are defendants. The policy had lapsed in October, 1933, by reason of the nonpayment of a premium when due, but the insurance company admitted liability under an extended insurance clause in the policy and left to the court the determination of the person to whom the proceeds of the policy should be paid.
The case was tried before a judge of the superior court who made a finding of facts, refused certain requests for rulings made by the plaintiff and entered a final decree in favor of the widow of the insured from which he plaintiff has appealed. All the evidence is reported.
The judge found the following facts. Late in the year 1933 the wife of the insured left his home and he went to live with his mother. At that time he handed the insurance policy to his mother saying in substance ‘ that is yours.’ He also told her that he would have her named in the policy as beneficiary in place of his wife. In January, 1934, he made a written application to the company for the reinstatement of the policy. The application was sent to the home office of the company and his mother from her own funds paid to the company the unpaid premium. Upon receipt of the application the company required a medical examination of the insured. Such an examination was had on March 24, 1934. A few days later the insured was killed in an accident. At the time of his death his mother still retained possession of the policy. There had been no reinstatement of the policy. In January, 1934, the insured told an agent of the company that he wished to have his mother made beneficiary but he made no written application for a change of the beneficiary.
The policy provided that ‘ * * * the insured may at any time while this policy is in force, by written notice to the company at its home office, change the beneficiary * * * such change to be subject to the right of any previous assignee, and to become effective only when a provision to that effect is endorsed on or attached to the policy by the company, whereupon all rights of the former beneficiary * * * shall cease.’ None of the acts required by the policy to accomplish a change of the beneficiary was done. There was no complaince with the requirements of the policy, Goldman v. Moses, 287 Mass. 393, 397, 191 N.E. 873, and a finding that the insured's mother had been substituted as beneficiary in place of his wife in compliance with the terms of the policy could not have been made, French v. Provident Savings Life Assurance Soc. of New York, 205 Mass. 424, 428, 91 N.E. 577. Kochanek v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 262 Mass. 174, 179, 159 N.E. 520; Resnek v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 286 Mass. 305, 308, 190 N.E. 603.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that when an insured makes a valid contract with another to...
To continue reading
Request your trial