Hoskins v. Hoskins
Decision Date | 07 June 1929 |
Citation | 20 S.W.2d 1029,231 Ky. 5 |
Parties | HOSKINS v. HOSKINS. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
As Modified, on Denial of Rehearing, November 8, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County.
Action by Edith Cornett Hoskins against Sallie Ann Hoskins and the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, which paid the amount for which it admitted liability to a trustee. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Sallie Ann Hoskins appeals. Affirmed.
Faulkner & Faulkner, of Hazard, for appellant.
W. A Stanfill, of Hazard, for appellee.
William Hoskins died on March 26, 1927. His life was insured in the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company which is what is termed an ordinary, legal reserve or old line company. The amount of this insurance is $3,529.38 which the company paid into court, and this is a contest between his mother and his widow, relative thereto. The widow was successful, and the mother has appealed.
This insurance contract was made on July 7, 1921, and the mother was named as the beneficiary. This policy contained a provision for changing beneficiaries which we shall copy later. Some time after taking this policy, William Hoskins married Edith Cornett Hoskins, whom we shall refer to as the widow. On March 18, 1927, William Hoskins accidentally received serious burns from contact with an electric wire.
We think it well at this point to state just what happened in the trial court, just what was done which we are asked to undo.
This policy, with its accumulations, amounted to $4,029.38. The company denied liability for any sum in excess of $3,529.38 and refused to pay any one.
Edith Cornett Hoskins sued for the whole amount, and made the company and Sallie Ann Hoskins defendants. Sallie Ann Hoskins answered, and claimed the whole of the policy. The company for its answer admitted liability for $3,529.38 and contested the remaining $500. By agreement it was allowed to pay this $3,529.38 to a trustee, upon whom the parties agreed. The issues were made, and this evidence heard before a jury.
L. A. Judy testified:
W. P. Mahew testified:
This was all the evidence on the question of change of beneficiary. The court instructed the jury to find for the insurance company upon the $500 it was contesting, and that was done.
The court then instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff, Edith Cornett Hoskins, if it should find and believe from the evidence that before his death, William Hoskins signed and delivered to W. P. Mahew the paper changing the beneficiary in the policy, and, unless it did so believe, to find for Sallie Ann Hoskins, and that nine or more agreeing could find a verdict.
The unanimous verdict was: Judgment for plaintiff followed, and this is what we are asked to undo.
Sallie Ann Hoskins did not object to the form of these instructions, but she insists she should have had a peremptory instruction to find for her, and the remainder of this opinion is our answer to this contention.
It is argued that the name of the new beneficiary, Edith Cornett Hoskins, was not in this request for change of beneficiary when William Hoskins signed it, but in the face of this evidence and the verdict of this jury foundation for that argument is rather hard to find.
There is no suggestion in either pleading or proof of fraud, want of capacity, or undue influence.
Counsel for the mother say a great deal about lack of evidence that Hoskins directed this paper to be sent to the company, but he knew he and Judy had discussed the matter of making this change; he knew the paper had been sent to him through Mahew by some one; his natural presumption was it was sent by Judy, and that Mahew would return it to Judy, and Judy would sent it to the company.
The proof shows Hoskins was superintendent of the Solar Coal Company, which would indicate he was a man above the average in intelligence. We cannot presume he proposed to do an idle thing when he signed this paper. Mahew told him to sign it, if he wanted to make his wife his beneficiary. He signed it, thus showing that was his purpose; then gave it back to Mahew, thus making Mahew his agent to carry out that purpose by delivering the paper to the proper parties. On May 4, 1927, Judy sent this application for change of beneficiary to the district office of his company at Ashland, Ky. and that office forwarded it to the home office of the company at Los Angeles, Cal., where it was received on May 11. The policy was not sent to the district office or to the home office. Some one in the Ashland office of this insurance company has at some time since the death of Hoskins inserted in this application for change of beneficiary the number of the policy, which was 431509, and has inserted the figures "7/7/21" to show the date of it. The only purpose in inserting this number and date is to identify the contract in which Hoskins desired to change the beneficiary, and as it is shown that this was the only contract he had with this company, it would have made no difference if this date and number had never been filled, and the question before us is: Was what was done sufficient to effectuate the change of beneficiary? The efforts of parties holding contracts of insurance on their lives to change the beneficiaries named has been a very fruitful source of litigation, as will appear to the reader from some of the cases cited in this opinion and as appears to us from the numerous cases cited in brief and other cases which we have examined in our study of this question.
Aside from sending the policy to the company, Hoskins did everything that was required of him to effectuate this change. He signed the printed request which the company had provided, after Mayhew had filled in the name of Edith Cornett Hoskins, the new beneficiary, and the request has been sent to the company. This policy was then in the possession of his mother, who resided at Annalee in Clay county. At the time Hoskins signed this request for a change of beneficiary, he was in the hospital at Hazard. The record shows that it is over 40 miles from Hazard to Annalee. This is a mountainous road and the trip can only be made on horseback. This is some explanation of why the policy was not sent with the request for change of beneficiary. Before the request for change of beneficiary reached the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, Hoskins had died, and the company had received notice of his death; hence when this request for change of beneficiary reached the insurance company, it did nothing. Counsel for the mother have been unusually diligent in the preparation of their brief in her behalf. They have cited a vast number of cases, principally cases, however from other jurisdictions, and place their chief reliance upon the case of Freund v. Freund, 218 Ill. 189, 75 N.E. 925, 109 Am. St. Rep. 283. It is generally held that where a right to change the beneficiary has been reserved to the insured in the policy or is authorized by statute, which is a part of the contract, the beneficiary named in the policy has a mere expectancy and no vested right or interest during the lifetime of the insured. This is the established rule in this state. See Twyman v. Twyman, 201 Ky. 102, 255 S.W. 1031, and cases there cited. It is also the general rule. See 37 C.J. 579, § 345. Where policies authorize the change of beneficiary, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
...Ga. 375, 160 S.E. 399, 78 A.L.R. 962; Jackson v. Leonard, 169 Ga. 324, 150 S.E. 152; Dell v. Varnedoe, 148 Ga. 91, 95 S.E. 977; Hoskins v. Hoskins, 231 Ky. 5, 20 1029; Daugherty v. Daugherty, 152 Ky. 732, 154 S.W. 9; Causey v. State Life Ins. Co., 17 La.App. 545, 135 S. 747; Quist v. Wester......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Moore, 8578.
...137 Ill. App. 278; Stewart v. Stewart, 90 Ind. App. 620, 169 N.E. 593; Twyman v. Twyman, 201 Ky. 102, 255 S.W. 1031; Hoskins v. Hoskins, 231 Ky. 5, 20 S.W. 2d 1029; Kimbal v. Nat. Life Co., 8 La. App. 228; French v. Prov. Sav. Co., 205 Mass. 424, 91 N.E. 577; Kochanek v. Prudential, 262 Mas......
-
Boehne v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
... ... Co., 1926, 114 Ohio St. 109, 150 N.E ... 748; La Borde v. Farmers' State Bank, 1927, 116 Neb. 33, ... 215 N.W. 559; Hoskins v. Hoskins, 1929, 231 Ky. 5, 20 S.W.2d ... 1029; Stewart v. Stewart, ... [28 N.W.2d 60] ... 1930, 90 Ind.App. 620, 169 N.E. 593; In re Chatham ... ...
-
Parks' Ex'rs v. Parks
... ... insured owed them no obligation as a matter of law not to ... exercise his reserved power and privilege. Hoskins v ... Hoskins, 231 Ky. 5, 20 S.W.2d 1029; United States ... Trust Company v. Winchester, 277 Ky. 434, 126 S.W.2d ... 814. However, calling the ... ...