Holder v. Prudential Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1907
• Citation: 57 S.E. 853,77 S.C. 299
• Parties: HOLDER et al. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

57 S.E. 853

77 S.C. 299

HOLDER et al. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 8, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County Prince, Judge.

Action by Deborah Holder and others against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Simpson & Bomar, for appellant. Stanyame Wilson, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance, in which the complaint alleges: " That on or about the _______ day of April, 1904, the defendant, by its authorized agent, R. H Ferguson, for valuable consideration, to wit, the delivery to him for said defendant of the note of B. D. Holder, to be due November 15, 1904, as a first premium, and of the agreement of said Holder to pay subsequent premiums as they should fall due, in accordance with the terms of said policy, agreed to insure, and thereby did insure, the life of said B. D. Holder for the benefit of the plaintiffs and Elva Holder, who thereafter predeceased him, in the sum of $1,000." The defendant in its answer says: "That at some time in April, 1904, B. D. Holder did make application for a policy in defendant's company, and that such policy was sent to the agent of said company to be delivered to him, but that the said policy was declined and was never taken and accepted by the said B. D. Holder, and that the said B. D. Holder never at any time paid to defendant or its agents any consideration therefor; and defendant alleges that at the time of the death of the said B. D. Holder there was no policy issued by the defendant outstanding or in force upon the life of the said B. D. Holder, and defendant therefore denies that plaintiffs have any right, title, or interest in the policy referred to in the complaint, or any other policy issued by the defendant company, and denies that they have any claim against this defendant on account of any such policy." The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, for the full amount of the policy, and the defendant appealed.

1. The first assignment of error is as follows: "Because the presiding judge erred in instructing the jury that, if the alleged insured, B. D. Holder, ever once accepted the policy in question, he could not afterwards surrender it without the consent of the beneficiaries therein named, when under the express terms of the policy itself it was distinctly stipulated as follows: 'Change of beneficiary: The insured may at any time while this policy is in force, by written notice to the company at its home office, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries under this policy, such change to take effect only upon indorsement of the same on the policy by the company, whereupon all rights of the former beneficiary or beneficiaries shall cease provided, however, that the insured shall have attained to majority according to the laws of the state in which the insured resides, and that no such change of beneficiary shall be valid if the policy or any interest therein be assigned at the time of such change'; the error being that the right was reserved by the insured to change the beneficiaries, and this included the right, so far as such beneficiaries were concerned, to surrender and cancel the policy. It was error of law to charge the jury to the contrary of this." The policy does not provide for a surrender thereof for the purpose of cancellation, but simply for a change of the beneficiary, upon compliance with the requirements therein prescribed. In 2 May on Insurance, § 399 l, the rule is thus stated: "The beneficiary takes a vested interest the moment the policy is issued, unless the agreement by charter or otherwise contains a provision inconsistent with such construction. A life policy and the money that may become due on it belong, the moment it is issued, to the beneficiary named in it, and the person procuring the insurance has no power by deed, assignment, or will surrender of a policy, and issue of a new one, or by other act, to transfer the interest to any one else. His right cannot be affected by any acts of the assured subsequent to the execution of the policy, except it be a breach of condition, unless by charter or otherwise it is a part of the original agreement that the beneficiary may be changed, or the beneficiary and the person procuring the insurance enter into an agreement as to what control each shall exercise over the policy. Then the indefeasible interest otherwise vesting in the beneficiary may not arise. If A. takes out a policy for his children, the interest vests in them; and, if A. afterwards surrenders the policy on receiving the...