Hopkins v. Northwestern Life Assur Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1899 |
| Docket Number | 87. |
| Citation | 94 F. 729 |
| Parties | HOPKINS v. NORTHWESTERN LIFE ASSUR. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Bernard Gilpin, for plaintiff.
Ira J Williams and Simpson & Brown, for defendant.
In April, 1892, John S. Hopkins made a contract with the defendant,-- then called the Northwestern Masonic Aid Association,-- which for present purposes we shall assume to have been a contract of life insurance. By this policy his life was insured for $10,000 upon the assessment plan, the beneficiaries named therein being his wife, the plaintiff, if living, and, in case of her death, his children, or his heirs at law. The policy provided that a 'change of beneficiaries can be made at any time, without charge, upon complying with the by-laws. ' It contained, no express conditions against suicide. In December, 1897, Mr. Hopkins decided to abandon the assessment plan, and accordingly applied to the company for a new policy of $10,000, similarly payable to his wife or children, but providing for the payment of a defined annual premium during a period of 20 years. The substitution was made, the first policy was surrendered and canceled, and the second policy was delivered to Mr. Hopkins in the month just named. Mrs. Hopkins neither knew of nor consented to the change. The second policy contained the following condition 'If the insured shall die by his own hand or act, whether sane or insane, within two years from the date of this policy, * * * then this policy shall be void, and cease to be binding upon said company, except for the amount which the insurer has paid in premiums on account hereof. ' In March, 1898, Mr. Hopkins killed himself, the death occurring within two years from the date of the policy. The company tendered before suit, and has paid into court, the premiums paid by the insured.
The present suit is brought by Mrs. Hopkins upon the first contract, her position being that, because she did not consent to the substitution, she is not bound by the second policy, but may treat the first as still in force. To this the company objects, and devotes much of its argument upon this motion to the support of its objections. We do not think it necessary, however, to consider the argument upon this branch of the case. For the purpose of the motion now before the court, we shall adopt the plaintiff's position, and shall regard the first contract as still in force. We shall also regard it as a policy of insurance, and not a mere certificate issued by a mutual benefit association. The defendant avers that when the first contract was made it was a mutual benefit association, and not a life insurance company, and that the contract in suit is merely a certificate of membership, expressly providing for a change of beneficiaries at any time, in which Mrs. Hopkins could therefore have no vested interest to be prejudiced by the subsequent substitution of another policy upon a different plan. As already stated, however, we shall not consider this objection, but shall assume the contract to be a policy of life insurance, properly so called. Treated as a policy, it is silent concerning suicide, and the single question to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. United States, 3882.
...v. Petril, D.C.E.D. Pa.1942, 43 F.Supp. 768, which reached that result under Pennsylvania law, but see Hopkins v. Northwestern Life Assur. Co., C.C.E.D.Pa.1899, 94 F. 729, at page 731, "The fact that the beneficiary is some other person than the insured * * * cannot enlarge the scope of the......
-
Moran v. Knights of Columbus
... ... therefore should have been filed. ( Hopkins v. N.W. Life ... Ass. Co., 94 F. 729; Dickerson v. N.W. Mut. L. Ins ... ...
-
Harrington v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, a Corporation
... ... New York L. Ins. Co. 40 C. C. A. 119, 99 ... F. 856; Logan v. Provident Sav. Life Assur". Soc. 57 ... W.Va. 384, 50 S.E. 529; Hutson v. Jenson, 110 Wis. 26, 85 ... N.W. 689 ... \xC2" ... contemplated by assured, when risk is assumed, renders the ... insurer not liable. Hopkins v. Northwestern Life Assur ... Co. 94 F. 729; Weber v. Supreme Tent, K. M. 172 ... N.Y. 490, ... ...
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Kelly
...nor the argument deduced therefrom, is fully persuasive to our minds. A view contrary to the Iowa doctrine is taken in Hopkins v. Assurance Co. (C.C.) 94 F. 729, affirmed by the court of appeals of the Third circuit, 40 C.C.A. 1 (99 F. 199). See, also, the case of Dean v. Insurance Co., 4 A......