Finegan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

• Decision Date: 04 April 1938
• Citation: 14 N.E.2d 172,300 Mass. 147
• Parties: FINEGAN v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

300 Mass. 147

14 N.E.2d 172

FINEGAN

v.PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 4, 1938.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Swift, Judge.

Action of contract by Anna G. Finegan against the Prudential Insurance Company of America on seven life insurance policies, in which defendant filed a petition of interpleader, on which Samuel Cabot, Inc., was made a defendant. On report.

Judgment for defendant Samuel Cabot, Inc., for the amount of a fund paid into court by defendant insurance company.R. F. Barrett, of Boston, for plaintiff.

F. W. Crocker, of Boston, and W. F. Coleman, for defendant.

FIELD, Justice.

This is an action of contract brought against an insurance company on seven insurance policies, in each of which the plaintiff was named as beneficiary, issued by the defendant on the life of the plaintiff's husband, John C. Finegan, who died June 16, 1935. The defendant filed a petition of interpleader under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 40, in which it admitted liability for the amount claimed in the declaration, alleged that this amount was claimed by Samuel Cabot, Inc., and that the defendant had no interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and petitioned the court to order said Samuel Cabot, Inc., herein referred to as the claimant, to be made a defendant. See Dixon v. National Life Ins. Co., 168 Mass. 48, 49, 46 N.E. 430. The original defendant paid into court the sum of $21,979.40, the undisputed amount of its liability under the policies. The claimant answered claiming the entire fund by virtue of assignments of the policies, and, in the alternative, the sum of $7,153.51, the amount-as the parties have agreed-paid by the claimant between February 20, 1929, and February 21, 1935, as premiums and interest on loans on the policies.

There was a pre-trial hearing, and, by the terms of the report, the ‘pre-trial agreement between counsel may be considered * * * as part of the record.’ See Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corporation, Mass., 8 N.E.2d 174;Eckstein v. Scoffi, Mass., 13 N.E.2d 436. Thereafter there was a trial. (Nothing in the record suggests that the case was not tried in accordance with the ‘pre-trial agreement.’ Compare Capano v. Melchionno, Mass., 7 N.E.2d 593.) The plaintiff, at the close of the evidence, made a motion for a directed verdict in her favor in the amount of $21,979.47, and the claimant made a motion for a directed verdict in its favor in the same amount. The judge denied both motions and directed a verdict for the plaintiff ‘in the sum of $14,825.06,’ and for the claimant ‘in the sum of $7,163.51.’ (sic) Both the plaintiff and the claimant excepted. The plaintiff also excepted to the admission of certain evidence and the claimant excepted to the exclusion of certain evidence. The judge reported the case on the stipulation that if his ruling ‘with reference to the disposition of the said fund is correct an order may be issued that said $14,825.96 be delivered to the plaintiff * * * and the sum of $7,153.51 be delivered to the * * * [claimant],’ but if ‘the rulings * * * are not correct, then such order may be entered * * * as justice may require.’

The pre-trial report was as follows: ‘It is admitted that the Prudential Insurance Company of America issued seven policies on the life of John C. Finegan, the dates, numbers and amounts of which are set forth in the various counts of the plaintiff's declaration. John C. Finegan died June 16, 1935. The amount due on these policies was $21,779.47 and this amount together with interest making the total amount $21,979.40 has been paid into court. The plaintiff was named the beneficiary in each of these policies and claims the entire fund as beneficiary. Samuel Cabot, Inc. claims the entire amount by virtue of assignments of each of the seven policies under date of February 26, 1929-(which the plaintiff Finegan claims were not valid and subsisting as of the date of the death of John C. Finegan.) These assignments will be produced by the defendant at the trial. No question is raised but these are each signed by both John C. Finegan and Anna G. Finegan. On March 2, 1929, John C. Finegan and Samuel Cabot, Inc., entered into a written agreement which will be produced at the trial by the defendant. The issues of fact to be tried are: 1. Was there any consideration for the assignment? 2. The amount of the indebtedness from the John C. Finegan Co. to Samuel Cabot, Inc. 3. Whether at the date of the death of John C. Finegan there was any indebtedness due from John C. Finegan Co. to the Cabot Co., and whether as of the date of the death the Cabot Co. had any interest in the John C. Finegan Co. So far as the language in the assignments, ‘as their interest may appear in the John C. Finegan Co.’ is concerned, the Cabot Co. agrees that the interest referred to was the interest of the Cabot Co. as a creditor of John C. Finegan Company.'

The amount due on the policies was payable to the plaintiff as the beneficiary named therein unless the claimant was entitled to the whole, or a part thereof, by reason of assignments of the policies or by reason of the payment by the claimant of premiums and interest on loans on such policies. The burden of establishing its claim to the whole or any part of the amount due on the policies was on the claimant. See Kochanek v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 262 Mass. 174, 179, 159 N.E. 520.

The effect of the ruling of the trial judge with respect to the disposition of the fund in controversy is that as matter of law the burden of proof resting on the claimant was sustained as to the amount paid by it as premiums and interest on loans, but that the agreed facts and evidence did not warrant a finding that the burden was sustained as to any larger amount. The claimant contends not only that a finding in its favor for the entire amount of the fund was warranted, but also that such a finding was required as matter of law. The plaintiff contends that the agreed facts and evidence did not require or even warrant a finding in favor of the claimant in any amount.

A finding in favor of the claimant for the entire amount of the fund paid into court was required as matter of law.

First. There were assignments of the policies to the claimant binding on the plaintiff.

The record does not disclose that the policies in question were introduced in evidence at the trial. Nor is it shown that they were delivered to the claimant. However, a separate written assignment of each of these policies, dated February 26, 1929, admittedly signed by John C. Finegan and by the plaintiff, was introduced in evidence. The case appears to have been tried on the basis that these assignments were in the possession of the claimant. They were not under seal. Each of them, purported to be signed by John C. Finegan, as the insured, and by the plaintiff, his wife, as beneficiary, recites ‘For Value Received, I hereby assign and transfer unto Samuel Cabot, Inc.’ the policy of insurance therein referred to ‘upon the life of John C. Finegan of Boston, Mass. as their interest may appear in John C. Finegan Co. * * * subject to the conditions of the said policy, and to the rules and regulations of said Company,’ and recites that the assignment is ‘made expressly subject to the lien of the Company on said policy for any indebtedness of the insured’ at the time the assignment is filed with the company. Within these limitations, and others not here material, the written assignments clearly purported to assign to the claimant the rights in the policies both of the insured and of the beneficiary. It is not contended that the rights of the insured in the policies were not assigned to the claimant, subject to limitations stated in the written assignments and in the ‘memorandum of agreement,’ hereinafter referred to. There is, however, no evidence of the extent of his rights in the policies and no evidence of any provision therein empowering him to give to an assignee any rights superior to those of the beneficiary. See Goldman v. Moses, 287 Mass. 393, 395, 396, 191 N.E. 873. So far as appears, therefore, the insured could not, by assignments made by him, take away from his wife, named as beneficiary in the policies, her rights in such policies. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 175, §§ 125, 126; Witherington v. Nickerson, 256 Mass. 351, 152 N.E. 707. But, by assignments of the policies in which the plaintiff and the insured joined, the plaintiff's rights in such policies would pass to the assignee to the extent fixed by the assignments. Kendall v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 171 Mass. 568, 51 N.E. 464;Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 235 Mass. 187, 126 N.E. 367. See, also, Worthen v. Burgess, 273 Mass. 437, 173 N.E. 530. And by signing the written instruments of assignment the plaintiff purported to join with the insured in assigning the policies.

There is no contention that any formal requisites of assignment set forth in the policies were not complied with, or that if any such requisites were not complied with the assignments were for that reason ineffective as between the plaintiff and the claimant. See Goldman v. Moses, 287 Mass. 393, 397, 191 N.E. 873. And properly it is not contended that an assignment binding upon the plaintiff could not have been made by an instrument in writing not under seal and not accompanied by delivery of the policy if other requirements of an assignment binding upon the plaintiff were met. See Richardson v. White, 167 Mass. 58, 60, 44 N.E. 1072;Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 218 Mass. 181, 185, 105 N.E. 450, Ann.Cas.1916A, 822; 2 Williston, Contracts (Rev.Ed.) §§ 424, 430; Am.Law Ins. Restatement, Contracts, § 157. ‘The important thing is the act and the evidence of intent; formalities are not material.’ Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Leonard Watch Co., 249 Mass. 14, 19, 143 N.E. 827, 829. And the written assignments, admittedly signed...