Filley v. The Illinois Life Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 10 January 1914
• Docket Number: 18,497
• Parties: MRS. CLARENCE E. FILLEY, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. (FANNIE E. FILLEY, Appellee)
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

137 P. 793

91 Kan. 220

MRS. CLARENCE E. FILLEY, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. (FANNIE E. FILLEY, Appellee)

No. 18,497

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 10, 1914

Decided January, 1914

Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 1; ALSTON W. DANA judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

LIFE INSURANCE--Payable to Wife--Divorce--No Change in Beneficiary--Benefit Payable to Surviving Beneficiary. The benefit accruing from a policy of life insurance, upon the life of a married man, payable upon his death to his wife, naming her, is payable to the surviving beneficiary, named, although she may have years thereafter secured a divorce from her husband and he was thereafter again married to one who sustained the relation of wife to him at the time of his death.

Eugene S. Quinton, Joseph G. Waters, and John C. Waters, all of Topeka, for the appellant.

J. H. Stavely, A. K. Stavely, both of Lyndon, and Thomas M. Lillard, of Topeka, for the appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.:

This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, in addition to the facts admitted in the pleadings, signed by the attorneys for each party. It reads:

"It is admitted by the plaintiff, through and by her attorneys, and the defendant, Fannie E. Filley, by and through her attorneys, that this cause may be submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts, and the copy of the policy attached to plaintiff's petition, and upon the pleadings.

"That at the time of the issuance of the policy herein sued on, to wit: on or about the 7th day of June, 1883, the said Clarence E. Filley, upon whose life said policy was issued, was then and at that time lawfully married to Fannie E. Filley, the defendant herein, and the said Fannie E. Filley, defendant herein, was at that time the lawful wife of the said Clarence E. Filley.

"It is further admitted that on or about the 12th day of June, 1900, the said Fannie E. Filley, defendant herein, sought and obtained a divorce from her then husband, Clarence E. Filley, the insured named in said policy, sued on in this action, the said policy being a part of this agreed statement of facts; and that in said decree certain property was prayed for, and set apart and decreed to Fannie E. Filley, the defendant; and that said Fannie E. Filley, defendant herein, is not claiming any right, title or interest in said policy by virtue of said decree.

"That on or about the 20th day of March, 1901, the said Clarence E. Filley, was married to the plaintiff herein, Mary Filley.

"And the said Mary Filley, plaintiff herein, was the wife of said Clarence E. Filley, at the time of the death of Clarence E. Filley, the insured in said policy.

"The annual premiums upon said policy were paid annually by the said Clarence E. Filley, up until the time of his death on the 24th day of August, 1910."

The determining question of law involved is whether, under these facts, Fannie E. Filley, who as the wife of the insured was made the beneficiary, is entitled to recover from the insurance company, she having been divorced before the death of the insured; or whether Mary Filley, whom the insured married after the divorce from Fannie and who was the wife of the insured at the time of his death, is entitled to recover.

Mary Filley, in the name of Mrs. Clarence E. Filley, brought this action, and Fannie E. Filley answered setting up her claims. The insurance company, defendant, having assumed the obligation of the Kansas Mutual Life Association, which issued the policy sued on, admitted its liability and paid the amount of the claim into court, and upon the order of the court it was dismissed from the action. The court rendered judgment in favor of Fannie E. Filley, and Mary Filley appeals and assigns as error, first, that the court erred in rendering judgment for the appellee; second, in overruling the motion for new trial; third, in not rendering judgment for the appellant.

The death benefit in the policy recited, in substance, that upon the receipt of satisfactory proof of the death of Clarence E. Filley, the insured, "he having conformed to all the conditions hereof, this Association will pay to His Wife, Fannie E. Filley, or to her legal representatives, the net proceeds of one full assessment . . . to an amount not to exceed THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS"; also, "that should the said Clarence E. Filley live to the age of Sixty-four years, and then choose to surrender this Policy, this Association will pay to said Clarence E. Filley the amount he has paid into the Treasury on account of Death and Expectation Indemnity Assessments (less the ten cents, cost of collection) with four per cent interest upon such payments." . . .

Epitomizing the agreed facts, the appellee, Fannie E. Filley, was the wife of the insured over seven years from the time of the issuance of the policy, when she secured a divorce, and in the way of alimony was apportioned a part of his property; that about nine months after the divorce the insured married the appellant, who remained his wife until the time of his death, over nine years thereafter. No claim is made by appellee by reason of any provision for her in the decree of divorce.

The appellant contends that the benefit was payable to the status, the person who sustained the relation of wife to Clarence E. Filley at the time of his death. The first ground for this contention is the language of the certificate or policy. It is said that where two nouns indicate one person, the second serves to identify the first rather than the first to identify the second. We see no force in this contention.

On the other hand, the appellee, Fannie E. Filley, contends, and we think in accordance with the authorities, that the circumstances and relations of the parties at the time the contract for insurance was made should determine, if the terms of the contract are indefinite or uncertain, the purpose and intent of the insured. He had the right to designate any person or persons he chose as beneficiaries within the restrictions of the rules of the company, and where the writing does not clearly indicate the purpose of the insured, the motives...