Burton v. The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1889
• Docket Number: 12,211
• Citation: 21 N.E. 746,119 Ind. 207
• Parties: Burton v. The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

21 N.E. 746

119 Ind. 207

Burton v. The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company

No. 12,211

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 29, 1889

From the Vanderburgh Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

C. L Wedding, F. M. Finch and J. A. Finch, for appellant.

A Gilchrist and C. A. DeBruler, for appellee.

OPINION

Berkshire, J.

The complaint is in two paragraphs, to both of which demurrers were filed and sustained, and judgment rendered against appellant for want of a complaint.

The errors assigned bring in review the ruling of the court below sustaining the demurrers to the paragraphs of the complaint.

The foundation of the action is a policy of insurance issued and made payable to the appellant directly by the appellee, upon the life of one Willard Carpenter. The policy recites the payment of the advanced premium by the appellant, and her promise to pay future premiums, as therein stipulated, as the consideration for the execution of the policy. There is an allegation in the paragraphs of complaint that, when the policy issued, the appellant was but six years of age, and that Willard Carpenter, the insured, was her grandfather, and, desiring to make provision for her, he procured from the appellee, for a valuable consideration, the policy sued upon, and that it was his intention that she should occupy the place of a beneficiary, or appointee, and receive the proceeds when payable.

Conceding all that is stated in this allegation to be true (and if material the demurrer admits its truth), the facts thus stated can not influence the rights of the parties under the policy. When the appellant accepted the policy and undertook to enforce it, she accepted it as written, and will not be permitted to allege and prove an existing state of facts dehors the writing to control its legal effect. This is a proposition so well authenticated that we do not deem it necessary to cite authorities.

There is no allegation in either paragraph of complaint to show that the appellant had an insurable interest in the life of her grandfather. Such an allegation is necessary to a good cause of action. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Volger, 89 Ind. 572. In that case the relationship was one degree nearer than in the present case, the policy having been issued to the daughter upon the life of her mother.

In Freeman v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 38 Barb. 247, the court says: "It must be considered well settled at present that at the common law, as well as under the statute of betting and gaming, a policy of fire insurance is void, unless the party insured has at the time an insurable interest in the property insured. It follows that a complaint in an action on the policy must contain an averment of such an interest, in order to sustain a cause of action." May Ins., section 587; Ruse v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 23 N.Y. 516.

In Singleton v. St. Louis Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Mo. 63, the following instruction was asked by the defendant and refused by the trial court: "That to entitle the plaintiff to recover in this action, he must show some insurable interest in the life of John T. Anderson, the insured, and that in the absence of any evidence, showing, or tending to show such insurable interest, the jury must find for defendant." After a discussion of the question presented by this instruction, the court says: "The court below erred in refusing to give defendant's tenth instruction, and for that error the judgment must be reversed." The foregoing was an action upon a life policy issued to an uncle upon the life of his nephew. See Guardian, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill. 35 (22 Am. Rep. 180). In the latter case the relationship was that of father and son.

As a rule, a grandfather is under no legal obligation to support or provide for his grandchild, and though the relationship may be stated in the complaint, from this fact alone the court can not, as a matter of law, infer such an insurable interest in the life of the grandfather as will uphold a policy issued upon his life directly to the grandchild.

In Rombach v. Piedmont, etc., Ins. Co., 35 La Ann. 233 (48 Am. Rep. 239), the court says: "The insurable interest in the life of another is a pecuniary interest. A policy of insurance, procured by one for his own benefit upon the life of another, the beneficiary being without interest in the continuance of the life insured, is against public policy and therefore void. * * The books formulate the general principle somewhat in this way: When the insurable interest arises, or is implied from relationship, it will be deemed to exist when the relationship is such that the insurer has a legal claim upon the insured for services or support. * * Thus it has been held that a sister had an insurable interest in the life of her brother, where the fact was that she had been supported by him (Lord v. Dall, 12...