Doney v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States

• Decision Date: 21 June 1922
• Parties: DONEY v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF THE UNITED STATES.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

117 A. 618

DONEY

v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF THE UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 21, 1922.

Appeal from District Court of Camden.

Action by Alma Doney, individually and as administratrix of Fred Doney, deceased, against the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued June term, 1922, before Justices PARKER, BERGEN, and MINTURN, JJ.

Lewis Starr, of Camden, for appellant.

PARKER, J. The suit is for the proceeds of insurance on the life of Fred Doney, deceased, plaintiff claiming as beneficiary either personally or in the alternative as administratrix. The question whether this is proper practice is not raised. The real crux of the case is whether the appellee, Alma Doney, is designated in the policy as beneficiary. She is not named therein, and another woman is named, but appedee claims that the appositive word "wife" points her out as the real beneficiary.

Deceased was in the service of a large corporation which took out a general policy for the benefit of all its employees, written by the defendant. The life of deceased was included it that policy by virtue of an application signed by deceased with the name "Fred B. Downey" (not Doney) and containing a clause reading:

"Beneficiary, with right to change reserved as stated in policy.

"Florence K. Downey

"(Full name of beneficiary)

"Wife

"(Relationship to employee)

Defendant issued a certificate based on this application, stating the insurance to be payable—

"to the beneficiary designated as entitled to receive the same, if death occur while in the employment of the said employer during the continuance of said policy and subject to the terms and conditions thereof,

"Florence K. Downey, Wife, "subject to the right of the employee to change the beneficiary," etc.

If no such beneficiary surviving, then to survivors in the following order of preference, viz.: (a) Widow or widower; (b) surviving children; (c) parents or the survivor of them; (d) brothers and sisters; (e) executors or administrators.

The facts conceded or established are that deceased had married the plaintiff appellee in 1901, and lived with her till about 1916, when he went away to work for the corporation mentioned, and that for several years before his death he had lived with Florence, named in the application and certificate, they holding themselves and each other out as husband and wife, that after the death of Fred Doney, or Downey, Florence had made claim for the insurance, and that it had been paid. Alma, the plaintiff, then brought this action in the district court against the company, waiving any excess over $500, and that court awarded judgment in her favor for that amount.

This judgment, in our opinion, cannot, stand. It has already been observed that the cirux of the case is whether Alma is legally designated as beneficiary, and we are clear both on reason and on authority that she is not. No question of beneficial interest of Florence is...