Com. Life Ins. Co. v. George

• Decision Date: 16 January 1947
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 468.
• Citation: 248 Ala. 649,28 So.2d 910
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH LIFE INS. CO. v. GEORGE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

28 So.2d 910

248 Ala. 649

COMMONWEALTH LIFE INS. CO. v. GEORGE.

6 Div. 468.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 16, 1947

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Gardner Goodwyn Judge.

Huey, Welch & Stone, of Bessemer, and Benners Burr, Stokely & McKamy, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Ross Ross & Ross, of Bessemer, for appellee.

GARDNER Chief Justice.

This suit is upon a life insurance policy insuring the life of Albert George, with the plaintiff Rosie George, his aunt named as beneficiary. The policy was issued February 16, 1938, and Albert George, the insured, died on the 22d day of February, 1945.

Ben George, the father of Albert, died as the result of an accident in June, 1933, leaving several children, four girls and four boys, one named Michael being the oldest of the boys, approximately 18 months older than Albert; Albert being the second child, and the other children younger. Albert's mother had died previous to the death of his father.

There is some confusion in the record as to the exact location of the residence of Rosie George at the time of his death, but we notice that Rosie George states that her home is 2530 Fifth Avenue, Bessemer, where she has lived all her life; and that Ben George, who was her brother, lived at 510-26th Street, Bessemer, which is quite near and just back of the store.

The father died as result of an accident, and the evidence is to the effect that there was some compensation due these children by a court order. No details appear, but we are informed by the briefs that this was under the Workmen's Compensation statute. At any rate, this necessitated the appointment of a legal guardian. In June, 1933, Kathleen George, another aunt of Albert and a sister of Rosie, the plaintiff in this cause, was duly appointed guardian for all the children, including Albert, by the Probate Court of Jefferson County.

Henry George was a brother of Ben, and he testifies that just after the death of his brother, upon the advice of the doctors, he attempted to get Albert committed to the Partlow State School for Mental Deficients located at Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Henry admitted his signature to the petition for the commitment of Albert to the Partlow State School. And, indeed, the record discloses that Albert was, in fact, stationed at the school a short time before the actual commitment papers were issued. But upon the record proper his admission to the Partlow State School was March 29, 1934, where he remained continually until his death on February 22, 1945.

The medical expert at the Partlow State School (Dr. R. C. Partlow) testified concerning the physical and mental condition of this unfortunate child, of whom he had had personal observation only since 1944. In his opinion Albert George was an idiot, which, according to his view, is a type of mental deficiency of the lowest order. That he had to be force-fed, and was unable to look after his simplest wants, and was constantly under some one's care. This expert was further of the opinion that the term idiot as applied to Albert meant that his mind did not develop from infancy, and that his condition had existed since birth. He further testified: 'Albert George was about the most abnormal person I have ever seen; his head was very much scarred as result of striking himself forcibly on the floor, and different places on his body. He would strike himself on the floor and scar himself more so than some idiots.' Dr. Partlow further stated that Albert could not walk except to hop and jump in an extremely abnormal fashion; the attendants having to pick him up and take him from place to place, and that he could neither talk nor hear.

Witness Smitherman had been connected with the Partlow State School as assistant supervisor since July, 1937, and had observed Albert from that time until the time of his death in February, 1945. He stated that the boy was as helpless as an infant, and required the constant attention of some one; that he was of unsound mind. The chart of the School disclosed Albert's admission in March, 1934, and at that time he weighed only 29 pounds, but that his weight and height varied. It further showed that he was a low grade idiot and unable to cooperate in any mental test; that he continually fought himself, displaying much timper, and at times was quite a problem. That he had to be force-fed and that, indeed, he was a nursing problem.

Plaintiff's testimony was contradictory in some respects, particularly to the effect that Albert was an idiot from birth. The plaintiff, Henry George, the uncle of Albert, and Dr. Wright, the physician, testified that he appeared to be a normal child up to the age of 4, 5 or 6 years, at which time he had some sort of stroke resulting in the condition indicated by the testimony of the defendant. Henry George insisted that the boy weighed as much as 60 pounds when he was committed to the Partlow State School, and that in his opinion he had a sound mind. The plaintiff also testified that in her opinion he was of sound mind. The only one who appears to have visited Albert during his stay at the Partlow State School was Henry, who claims that during these years he might have visited him 8 or 10 times. It was he who carried Albert to the institution. At that time Albert was about 13 years of age. Henry insisted that about a month after Albert had been committed to the Partlow State School he visited him and he appeared healthy, looked much better and wanted to go home with him. He went back to see him again, and stated that he seemed to like the place, though he did not like it at first. That on other visits he had said something about coming home with him, and his recognition was, to use the language of the witness, 'He would say--shake his head, and run to the nurse, and go back to the other children.'

Giving full weight to the testimony of Henry George, and considering the fact this policy was issued in 1938, it is difficult to see that there is really any conflict produced on consideration of these few visits at the Partlow State School and the testimony of the assistant supervisor, who had constant supervision over Albert from 1937 until the time of his death, as well as the testimony of the mental expert, Dr. Partlow, who had personal contact with him from 1944 until the time of his death, as well as a study of the history of the case from the school chart.

Albert was committed to the institution as an indigent, and remained there during the years at the expense of the State.

Whatever may be said concerning his mental condition at the time of his birth, yet undisputedly from the time of his commitment to the Partlow State School in 1934 to the time of his death Albert was wholly mentally irresponsible.

Plaintiff's testimony is to the effect that at the time of the issuance of this policy, one Hartley, defendant's agent, solicited the insurance on the life of Albert, though she told him that he was at the Partlow State School, was a cripple and paralyzed. She insists that she knew he was not insurable, particularly in view of the fact that he was at the Partlow State School. We have previously observed the testimony of Henry George that he was so committed upon the advice of doctors. Notwithstanding this information on the part of the agent, plaintiff insists that he urged the writing of the insurance and that she signed the name of Albert George to the application for the insurance at the suggestion of the agent. The agent insists that on the contrary there was exhibited to him a boy about the age and height and weight of the one specified in the application, and that it was this Albert George whose life was being insured. Hartley further testified that he remembers something about plaintiff's reference to a school, but that he knew nothing about the school and considered it immaterial what school he was attending.

The defendant lays stress upon several lines of defense. First, it is urged that by virtue of Title 9, § 43, Code of 1940, the contract of insurance is void because of the mental incapacity of Albert George to enter into a contract of insurance. Further, that if there was a substitution or impersonation by a third person for the insured, there was no contract of insurance, citing National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 226 Ala. 325, 147 So. 173; National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Moore, 216 Ala. 554, 114 So. 45; 29 Am. Jur., page 681, and authorities cited in the note.

These and other matters are argued in brief, all of which present questions worthy of serious consideration, but which we lay aside as unnecessary for consideration here in view of the conclusion reached that the plaintiff has failed to show that she had an insurable interest in the life of Albert George. That is the fundamental question in the case, and upon which we think the decision here is properly to be rested.

It is of course, well established that one cannot take out a valid and enforcible policy of insurance for his own benefit on the life of a person in which he has no insurable interest. Such a policy or contract of insurance is void and unenforcible on ground of public policy, it being merely a wagering contract. The decisions are also to the effect that such a policy is void at its inception and is not rendered valid by a clause declaring it incontestable after a specified period of time. The reasoning found in the cases is based upon the presumption that a temptation would be held out to the one taking out the policy to hasten by improper means the time when he should receive the amount of insurance named in the policy. Good faith alone will not suffice to sustain a policy taken out on the life of another by one who has no interest in the...