Davis v. Southern Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18616,18616 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Fannie Marie DAVIS, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Marion Copeland d/b/a Deluxe Funeral Home, of whom Southern Life Insurance Company is, Respondent. |
Floyd & Craig, Hartsville, for appellant.
Paulling & James, Darlington, for respondent.
Southern Life Insurance Company, the respondent herein, on January 6, 1964, issued to Harry Davis an insurance policy on his life in the face amount of Five Hundred & 00/100 ($500.00) Dollars, and his wife, Fannie Marie Davis, the appellant herein, was therein designated the beneficiary. It was provided by the terms of the aforesaid policy that the insured had the right to change the beneficiary. Thereafter, in accordance with the reservation made, Marion Copeland was designated as beneficiary of said policy in lieu of the appellant and such change was endorsed upon the said policy on September 18, 1964. The insured died on December 1, 1965.
The appellant commenced this action on May 31, 1966. In the complaint she alleged that the aforesaid insurance was purchased by her husband so that she could use the proceeds thereof for his proper burial. It was further alleged that subsequent to the issuance of said policy that the respondent, in furtherance of a scheme and conspiracy to cheat and defraud her out of the proceeds of said policy and the use thereof to provide for the burial of her said husband, did enter into an unlawful agreement with Marion Copeland, an undertaker, who operated a funeral home and had no insurable interest in the life of her husband, whereby the said Copeland would, if designated as beneficiary in said policy, pay the premiums thereon and upon the death of the insured would give him a decent burial to be paid for out of the proceeds of said policy. It was further alleged that the insured and the appellant were ignorant and uneducated negroes and upon receiving assurance from the undertaker and the respondent that the said agreement was proper and would be carried out, consented that Copeland be named as beneficiary in the aforesaid policy. It was further alleged that the respondent and Copeland knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid agreement was illegal and void and, therefore, the appellant remained and still is the legal beneficiary of said policy. It was further alleged that the respondent refused to pay over the proceeds of said insurance policy to the appellant in consummation of an aforesaid unlawful scheme and conspiracy. The appellant further alleged that as a result of the aforesaid conspiracy, she has been caused to suffer great mental anguish and unnecessary grief, to spend many sleepless nights worrying about her inability to pay said funeral expenses after being deprived of her only means of payment, has been harassed by the undertaker for the payment of said funeral expenses, and has been visited by representatives of the respondent and caused to sign papers when she was ignorant of the contents and import thereof; all of which has caused her nerves to be grievously upset. It was then alleged as a consequence of the aforesaid conspiracy, consummated by the refusal of the respondent to pay over the proceeds of said policy for the purpose of burying her husband, that she is entitled to actual and punitive damages.
The respondent demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it for the following reasons, all of which appear upon the face of the complaint: (1) That at the time of the death of Harry Davis the appellant was not the owner of or beneficiary under said policy nor was the entitled to any benefits thereunder but, on the contrary, Marion Copeland was the beneficiary of said policy and entitled to the benefits thereunder; (2) That the appellant has sustained no damages as a result of the matters alleged in her complaint; (3) That none of the legal rights of the appellant have been invaded by the respondent, and (4) There was no privity of contract between the appellant and this respondent and no tort was committed against the appellant.
The demurrer was heard by The Honorable James A. Spruill, Jr., Resident Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. It was the contention of the appellant that she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Revis by Revis v. Revis
...not have plain language which directly addresses the life insurance policies owned by Revis at the time. In Davis v. Southern Life Ins. Co., 249 S.C. 194, 153 S.E.2d 399 (1967), our supreme court ruled that during the lifetime of the insured the named beneficiary has no vested property righ......
-
Daniels v. Coleman
...fraud and deceit must be founded on proof of legal injury and actual damage and the two elements must concur. Davis v. Southern Life Ins. Co., 249 S.C. 194, 153 S.E.2d 399. The evidence is conclusive that the note and mortgage, the possession of which was alleged to have been obtained by fr......
-
Horne v. Gulf Life Ins. Co.
...the named beneficiary has a mere expectancy; the complete control of the policy remains in the insured. Davis v. Southern Life Insurance Company, 249 S.C. 194, 153 S.E.2d 399 (1967); Swygert v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 229 S.C. 199, 92 S.E.2d 478 (1956); Davis v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co., i......
-
Wines v. State
... ... March 8, 1967 ... William A. Dallis, George H. Davis, Jr., Columbia, for appellant ... [249 S.C. 192] Daniel ... The record reflects that most of his adult life has been spent in the South Carolina Penitentiary serving several ... ...