Grelle v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1979
• Citation: 63 Ohio App.2d 144,409 N.E.2d 1056
• Parties: , 17 O.O.3d 338 GRELLE, Admr., Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE LIFE INS. COMPANY et al., Appellees. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 144

63 Ohio App.2d 144

409 N.E.2d 1056, 17 O.O.3d 338

GRELLE, Admr., Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE LIFE INS. COMPANY et al., Appellees. ^*

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

April 24, 1979.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the former spouse of a decedent is named as a beneficiary in an insurance policy held by the deceased, such person is entitled to the proceeds even though their marriage was dissolved pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into the decree.

Wolske & Blue, Walter Wolske, Jr., Grelle & Paxton, and Robert C. Paxton, II, Columbus, for appellant.

Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt and William T. McCracken, Columbus, for appellee, Nationwide Life Ins. Co. Tyack, Scott, Grossman & Wiseman and Thomas M. Tyack, Columbus, for appellee Carol Grelle.

WHITESIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting a summary judgment in favor of defendants and raises three assignments or error, as follows:

"1. The trial court committed error in holding that the separation agreement did not bar appellee, Carol Grelle, from receiving the proceeds of three life insurance policies on the life of appellant's decedent in the sum of $83,000.00.

"2. The trial court committed error in failing to grant summary judgment to plaintiff based on the affidavits attached to plaintiff's memorandum.

"3. The trial court committed error in failing to deem 'admitted' appellant's request for admissions as appellee's answers were insufficient and inadequate under Rule 36, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in admissions."

Plaintiff is the father and the administrator of the estate of Walter William Grelle, III, who took his own life approximately four months after the dissolution of his marriage to defendant Carol Grelle which dissolution was initiated pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into the decree. At issue are three life insurance policies upon the life of the deceased, of which defendant Carol Grelle is the named beneficiary. Plaintiff contends that the separation agreement had the effect of eliminating defendant Carol Grelle as beneficiary of the three policies, whereas defendants contend that the agreement did not have that effect. The trial court found in favor of defendants, resulting in this appeal. The proceeds of defendant Nationwide's policy was paid to defendant Carol Grelle within ten days of the insured's death, but the proceeds of the other two policies were paid into court by way of interpleader.

The basic issue in this case is that raised by the first assignment of error. Both parties have cited cases from other jurisdictions in support of their respective positions, as well as some Ohio authority. Inasmuch as there is some conflict of authority in other jurisdictions, and in light of the clarity of the pronouncements of the Ohio Supreme Court by which this court is bound, references to other jurisdictions, although considered, are omitted.

In Overhiser v. Overhiser (1900), 63 Ohio St. 77, 57 N.E. 965, the Supreme Court succinctly stated in the syllabus that:

"When a married woman is named as a beneficiary in a policy of insurance on the life of her husband she is entitled to the proceeds of the policy, notwithstanding a divorce obtained by her before his death."

Although a dissolution, rather than a divorce, is involved here, the result, of necessity, is the same.

Overhiser was followed in Cannon v. Hamilton (1963), 174 Ohio St. 268, 189 N.E.2d 152, which also adopted the proposition that a change of beneficiary can be effected by a separation agreement, the syllabus of that case stating as follows:

"1. A married woman who is named as a beneficiary in a policy of life insurance is entitled to the proceeds upon the death of her insured husband, notwithstanding a divorce obtained by her from the insured before his death. The designation of the beneficiary in the policy as the wife of the insured is merely descriptive. (Overhiser, Admx., v. Overhiser, 63 Ohio St. 77, (57 N.E. 965, 50 L.R.A. 552) approved and followed.)

"2. Ordinarily, a change of beneficiary in a policy of life insurance by the insured is accomplished by following the procedure directed in the policy.

"3. A separation agreement entered into between the insured and his wife before divorce and made a part of the divorce decree may operate to remove the wife as beneficiary in the policy of life insurance, but to have that effect such agreement must plainly indicate the elimination of the wife as such beneficiary."

Although prior to his death, Walter W. Grelle, III, did not follow the procedure directed in the policies to change beneficiaries, he and defendant Carol J. Grelle, did enter into a separation agreement providing, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Whereas, there is certain personal property and joint obligations owed between the parties, which the parties are desirous of dividing between themselves and are further desirous of, as between themselves, discharging the obligations in connection with the debts; and

"Whereas, each of the parties hereto desires by this agreement to settle and adjust all marital claims, property and alimony rights arising from and growing out of said marriage,

"Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and of the promises and covenants of each to the other, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: * * *

"8. The Husband agrees to assume and pay premiums to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company on insurance coverage on the automobiles and any other insurance coverages with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, excepting the insurance coverage on the premises known as 435 Eastmoor, which the Wife agrees to maintain in force, as set forth in Item 3, hereinabove. * * *

"14. Neither party shall pay nor be obligated to pay any alimony to or on behalf of the other party in the present or in the future.

"15. Except as specifically provided herein, each of the parties hereto releases and discharges the other from all obligations of support and from all other claims, rights and duties arising from or growing out of their marital relationship, and except as herein specifically provided, each party may freely sell or otherwise dispose of his or her own...