Dieterle v. Standard Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 September 1938
• Docket Number: No. 24756.,24756.
• Citation: 119 S.W.2d 440
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: DIETERLE v. STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.

119 S.W.2d 440

DIETERLE v. STANDARD LIFE INS. CO.

No. 24756.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 9, 1938.

Rehearing Denied September 21, 1938.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; R. A. Breuer, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Suit on benefit certificate by Mrs. Albert Dieterle against the Standard Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Barak T. Mattingly and Douglas H. Jones, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

F. W. Jenny and T. P. Hukriede, both of Union, for respondent.

HOSTETTER, Presiding Judge.

This suit was instituted on February 5, 1937 in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, and is based on a benefit certificate of insurance for $1,000 issued by the Mid-West Mutual Insurance Association of Chamois, Missouri, on the life of Tony J. Basler of Berger, Missouri, wherein plaintiff was designated as beneficiary.

The certificate was issued on June 13, 1932, and thereafter, and prior to the death of the insured (which occurred on the 23rd day of March, 1936), the defendant took over and reinsured him, along with all other policyholders in good standing.

Both companies were incorporated under the provisions of Sections 5745-5758, inclusive, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 5745-5758, pp. 4398-4411, authorizing them to engage in doing the business of life insurance under the assessment plan therein provided.

The insured and the plaintiff were brother and sister, but this kinship does not appear on the face of the certificate of insurance issued by the Mid-West association.

The petition was in conventional form. The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition based on the alleged ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant, which was overruled. Thereupon, defendant filed an answer which admitted its incorporation under the provisions of Sections 5745-5758, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 5745-5758, pp. 4398-4411, and which contained a general denial of all the allegations contained in the petition.

It was further alleged in the answer that plaintiff (the named beneficiary under the certificate) had no insurable or pecuniary interest in the life of her brother, Tony Basler, and that $37, the amount of premiums received, were paid into court for the use of plaintiff and that the policy was at all times null and void.

A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court, resulting in a finding and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000, with interest thereon from August 16, 1937, at six per cent per annum, together with costs.

After an ineffective motion for a new trial defendant brings the cause to this court by appeal for review.

Defendant's chief contention is that the petition is fatally defective in that it fails to plead any insurable interest and that its demurrer to the petition should have been sustained. We are unable to agree with this contention. The plaintiff was the beneficiary originally designated in the policy by the insured when it was issued, and no change was ever made.

It is well settled law that mutual assessment insurance associations operating under the provisions of Sections 5745 to 5758, inclusive, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 5745-5758, pp. 4398-4411, are not subject to the general insurance laws.

It is also equally well settled law that a sister, as such, has no insurable interest in the life of a brother. Section 5751, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 5751, p. 4406, insofar as it is pertinent to this discussion, reads as follows: "No corporation doing business under this article shall issue a certificate or policy upon * * * any life in which the beneficiary named has no insurable interest."

It will be noted that the inhibition against the issuance of a policy or certificate, in which the beneficiary named has no insurable interest in the life of the insured, is leveled against the corporation. When it issues such a policy or certificate, it does so in direct violation of law. It knows or ought to know, through its officers and agents, that it is forbidden, by the very law which gives it a right to conduct an insurance business, to issue such a policy.

The insured and the beneficiary, in the instant case, had no such opportunity to become acquainted with the law which forbade the corporation to issue such a policy. They paid the assessments punctually, in blissful ignorance of the fact that the sister, as such, had no insurable interest in the life of her brother.

Many of the cases cited by defendant in support of its contention that the policy sued on is merely a wagering contract, and, therefore, void and unenforcible, are cases where the beneficiary procured the issuance of the policy, whereas, in this case, the evidence shows that the insured had it issued and presented it to his sister to reimburse her for what she had done for him, for which he owed her. The mere fact that the plaintiff, whose name was inserted in the certificate sued on, as beneficiary, was a sister of the insured, does not in and of itself render the certificate void. Williams v. Northeast Mutual Insurance Association, Mo. App., 51 S.W.2d 142, and Id., Mo.App., 72 S.W.2d 166.

The sister, if a creditor of her brother, had an insurable interest in his life. Long v. Montgomery, Mo.App., 22 S.W.2d 206; Morrow v. National Life Association of Des Moines, Iowa, 184 Mo.App. 308, 168 S.W. 881.

Where a person insures his own life for the benefit of another it is not necessary for the beneficiary to allege that he had an insurable interest in the life of the insured. 37 C.J. 608.

The plaintiff, being the original and only beneficiary ever designated by the insured, was not required to show...