Hall v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHARPE
• Citation: Hall v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 295 Mich. 404, 295 N.W. 204 (Mich. 1940)
• Decision Date: 10 December 1940
• Docket Number: No. 73.,73.
• Parties: HALL v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF U. S. et al. FOOTE v. HALL et al. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF U. S. v. HALL et al.

295 Mich. 404

295 N.W. 204

HALL

v.EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF U. S. et al.

FOOTE

v.HALL et al.

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF U. S.

v.HALL et al.

No. 73.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1940.

Action by William H. Hall, administrator of the estate of Billy Charles Will, deceased, against the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, etc., and another to determine the right to proceeds of a life insurance policy, wherein defendant Emma H. Foote filed a cross-bill and defendant Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States filed its answer and a bill of interpleader, paid the proceeds of the policy into court and was discharged. From an adverse decree, Emma H. Foote appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Saginaw County; James E. O'Neill, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Floyd A. Wilson and De Vere Kostoff, both of Saginaw, for appellant Emma H. Foote.

Heilman & Purcell, of Saginaw, for appellee William H. Hall, Adm'r.

Brownell & Gault, of Flint (Morris Zwerdling, of Flint, of counsel), for appellee Equitable Life Assur. Soc.

SHARPE, Justice.

This is an action to determine the right to proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States on the life of Billy Charles Will.

The principal facts are not in dispute. When Billy Charles Will was 18 years of age his father died leaving him an estate of approximately $4,000. After consulting with relatives, he decided upon having William H. Foote as his guardian and, accordingly, Mr. Foote was so appointed by the probate court. Billy Charles Will made his home with Mr. and Mrs. Foote and also continued friendly relations with members of his own family. Mr. Foote died in May, 1936, and Emma H. Foote, as executrix of her husband's estate, settled the guardianship account with Billy Charles Will the day following his twenty-first birthday, namely, July 9, 1936.

On July 15, 1936, Billy Charles Will made application for an insurance policy and ‘Emma H. Foote (guardian)’ was named beneficiary therein. The policy was issued about July 28, 1936, in which the beneficiary is designated ‘Emma H. Foote.’ The assured died December 30, 1936.

William H. Hall, administrator of the estate of Billy Charles Will, filed a bill of complaint against the insurance company and Emma H. Foote asking that the policy be reformed and corrected to read-Emma H. Foote (guardian); and that the court find that it was the intention of deceased that Emma H. Foote should take the proceeds of the policy in a fiduciary capacity in the nature of a trust for the benefit of decedent's estate. The insurance company filed its answer and a bill of interpleader, paid the proceeds of the policy into court and was discharged.

The cause came on for trial and the trial court made the following finding of facts:

‘Although the application named Emma H. Foote (guardian) beneficiary, the policy itself does not show Emma H. Foote (guardian) beneficiary. The policy shows Emma H. Foote beneficiary; the designation (guardian), being omitted. Inasmuch as the policy does not conform to the application made by the insured and because the policy with the application constitute the entire contract according to the terms of the policy itself * * * and according to Michigan C.L.1929, Sections 12425, 12427 and 12435, it follows the policy must be considered to read Emma H. Foote (guardian) beneficiary.

‘It is conceded that Emma H. Foote was never appointed guardian of Billy C. Will, although for some time before his death her husband was the duly appointed guardian of his (Billy C. Will's) estate. Under these circumstances it is competent for an inquiry to be made to determine what Billy C. Will intended when he named Emma H. Foote (guardian) beneficiary. This court is of the opinion that the testimony on this question shows that Billy C. Will did not intend to deprive his estate of the benefit of his insurance and intended Emma H. Foote to take this benefit for his estate. This conclusion seems inescapable for otherwise the word (guardian) should never have been used by him.’

Emma H. Foote appeals and contends that decedent's intent is to be determined by the court as a matter of law from an examination of the insurance contract without the aid of oral testimony; that the language of the application relative to the beneficiary is clear and unambiguous; and that the word ‘guardian’ as used in the application is descriptio personae to identify the beneficiary and decedent intended by the application to name Emma H. Foote individually as beneficiary.

The administrator of the estate contends that Emma H. Foote never having been appointed guardian of Billy Charles Will, a latent ambiguity exists; and that under such conditions the court must resort to parol evidence to determine the capacity in which the beneficiary would take the proceeds, if any, and that it was the intent of the assured that the named beneficiary should take in the nature of a passive trust.

In the case at bar, it is difficult to discover from a reading of the contract whether decedent used the word ‘guardian’ as descriptive of a person or in some other sense, i. e., whether he intended Emma H. Foote the individual, Emma H. Foote (guardian) or Emma H. Foote as guardian to be beneficiary of this fund.

In determining this matter we have in mind that the application for the insurance policy and the policy issued thereunder construed together constitute the insurance contract (3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 12427, Stat.Ann. 24.263; Hawthorne v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 285 Mich. 329, 280 N.W. 777); and that the rules for the construction of an insurance contract are the same as for any other written contract. Bowen v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 178 Mich. 63, 144 N.W. 543, 51 L.R.A., N.S., 587.

In 10 R.C.L. p. 1070, it is said: ‘It is a general rule that where the...