GRIGSBY V. RUSSELL
| Decision Date | 04 December 1911 |
| Citation | 222 U. S. 149 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
A condition in an insurance policy that it shall be void for nonpayment of premiums means only that it shall be voidable at option of the company.
The rule of public policy that forbids the taking out of insurance by one on the life of another in which he has no insurable interest does not apply to the assignment by the insured of a perfectly valid policy to one not having an insurable interest.
In this case, held that the assignment by the insured of a perfectly valid policy to one not having any insurable interest but who paid a consideration therefor and afterwards paid the premiums thereon was valid, and the assignee was entitled to the proceeds from the insurance company as against the heirs of the deceased.
A valid policy of insurance is not avoided by a cessation of insurable interest, even as against the insurer, unless so provided by the policy itself. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775, distinguished.
Where there is no rule of law against paying to an assignee who has no insurable interest in the life of the insured, and the company waives a clause in the policy requiring proof of interest, the rights of the assignee are not diminished by such clause as against the insured's administrator.
Even though a court below might hesitate to decide against language of this Court referring to a debated point, if there has been no direct decision, this Court is not precluded by such references when the point is actually before it.
168 F. 577 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
This is a bill of interpleader brought by an insurance company to determine whether a policy of insurance issued to John C. Burchard, now deceased, upon his life shall be paid to his administrators or to an assignee, the company having turned the amount into court. The material facts are that, after he had paid two premiums and a third was overdue, Burchard, being in want and needing money for a surgical operation, asked Dr. Griggsby to buy the policy, and sold it to him in consideration of 0 and Griggsby's undertaking to pay the premiums due or to become due, and that Griggsby had no interest in the life of the assured. The circuit court of appeals, in deference to some intimations of this Court, held the assignment valid only to the extent of the money actually given for it and the premiums subsequently paid. 168 F. 577.
Of course, the ground suggested for denying the validity of an assignment to a person having no interest in the life insured is the public policy that refuses to allow insurance to be taken out by such persons in the first place. A contract of insurance upon a life in which the insured has no interest is a pure wager that gives the insured a sinister counter-interest in having the life come to an end. And
although that counter-interest always exists, as early was emphasized for England in the famous case of Wainewright (Janus Weathercock), the chance that in some cases it may prove a sufficient motive for crime is greatly enhanced if the whole world of the unscrupulous are free to bet on what life they choose. The very meaning of an insurable interest is an interest in having the life continue, and so one that is opposed to crime. And, what perhaps is more important, the existence of such an interest makes a roughly selected class of persons who, by their general relations with the person whose life is insured, are less likely than criminals at large to attempt to compass his death.
But when the question arises upon an assignment, it is assumed that the objection to the insurance as a wager is out of the case. In the present instance, the policy was perfectly good. There was a faint suggestion in argument that it had become void by the failure of Burchard to pay the third premium ad diem, and that, when Grigsby paid, he was making a new contract. But a condition in a policy that it shall be void if premiums are not paid when due means only that it shall be voidable at the option of the company. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234; Oakes v. Manufacturers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 135 Mass. 248. The company waived the breach, if there was one, and the original contract with Burchard remained on foot. No question as to the character of that contract is before us. It has been performed and the money is in court. But, this being so, not only does the objection to wagers disappear, but also the principle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yost
...that the policy shall be voidable at the option of the company. Knights of Pythias v. Quin, 78, Miss. 531, 29 So. 826; Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 56 L.Ed. 133; Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Wolverton, 296 P. Therefore, the insurer may, and with great frequency does, waive the breach of t......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Miller
... ... Roberts, ... 165 Ky. 296, 176 S.W. 1139; Knickerbocker Ins. Company v ... Norton, 96 U.S. 234, 24 L.Ed. 689; Grigsby v ... Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 32 S.Ct. 58, 56 L.Ed. 133, 36 ... L.R.A. (N. S.) 642, Ann.Cas. 1913B, 863; Thompson v ... Insurance Co., 104 U.S ... ...
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Miller
... ... Central Life Insurance Company v. Roberts, 165 Ky. 296, 176 S.W. 1139; Knickerbocker Ins. Company v. Norton, 96 U.S. 234, 24 I. Ed. 689; Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 32 S. Ct. 58, 56 L. Ed. 133, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 642, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 863; Thompson v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 252, 26 L. Ed ... ...
-
Wexler v. Cal. Fair Plan Ass'n
...States also adopted and continued developing the doctrine as federal common law. (E.g., Grigsby v. Russell (1911) 222 U.S. 149, 155, 156, 157, 32 S.Ct. 58, 56 L.Ed. 133 ( Grigsby ) (Holmes, J.) [referring to English law].)California passed its version of the insurable interest doctrine in 1......
-
Does the Dodd-frank Wall Street Reform Act Rein in Credit Default Swaps? an Eu Comparative Analysis
...closely related by blood or law. Id. 244. See, e.g., id. § 281. 245. See Abraham, supra note 232, at 7. 246. See Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149 (1911) (life insurance); Studio Frames Ltd. v. Standard Fire Ins., 483 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (fire insurance); see also Bloink, supra note 236......
-
Life settlements.
...life settlement marketplace in 1911, when it established the policy owner's right to transfer an insurance policy (Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149 Given the statistics, why are more people not taking advantage of this option? The primary reasons are (1) industry misconceptions and (2) poli......