French v. Provident Savings Life Assur. Society of New York
| Decision Date | 23 March 1910 |
| Citation | 91 N.E. 577,205 Mass. 424 |
| Parties | FRENCH v. PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOCIETY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Colver J. Stone, for plaintiff.
Coggan & Coggan and Linus C. Coggan, for claimant.
The defendant issued a policy of insurance on the life of one Fannie A. Richardson, in which, prior to May, 1908, her husband, the claimant, had been made beneficiary. Thereafter she sent for an agent of the defendant and said to him that she desired to make the policy payable to her mother instead of her husband. On May 2, 1908, she signed and acknowledged the usual form for such change of beneficiary, but being unable to find the policy was told by the defendant's agent that the policy must be surrendered to the company to complete the change or a lost certificate be filed, and she said when she found the policy she would send it to the agent. A few days later a blank certificate for a lost policy was mailed to her. The agent took with him and kept in Boston the request for change of beneficiary, but did not send it to the defendant until after the death of the insured. The defendant never received any certificate for lost policy nor was the policy itself surrendered for the completion of the change of beneficiary. The insured stated shortly before her death on August 10 1908, that she had made out her life insurance to her mother. The clause in the policy as to change of beneficiary was as follows:
'This policy is issued with the express understanding that the assured may, with the consent of the society and provided this policy be not then assigned, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries at any time during the continuance of this policy, by filing with the society a written request, duly acknowledged, accompanied by this policy, in which case it is understood that such change will take effect upon the indorsement of the same on this policy by the society.'
The only evidence as to the knowledge by the defendant of the attempt of the insured to change the beneficiary was that it had at some time copies of the letter of its agent, dated May 7, 1908, to the assured, to the effect that it would be necessary for the company to have the policy in order to make the change of beneficiary, or the certificate for lost policy properly executed, and of a letter from its Boston cashier to the same agent stating that if nothing further had been done about the change of beneficiary she would like to return the application therefor.
The single question presented is whether the monther or the husband of the assured is entitled to the insurance. The husband was properly designated as beneficiary. Did the acts of the insured amount to a change of designation in favor of her mother? It is to be observed that this is not a case...
To continue reading
Request your trial