In re Petition of Idaho Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1936
• Docket Number: 6207
• Citation: 56 Idaho 272,53 P.2d 1171
• Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of the IDAHO MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC., and HARRIET T. WILLMAN, Plaintiff in Intervention and Appellant, v. ALICE FRUITTS BUMGARNER, Defendant in Intervention and Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

53 P.2d 1171

56 Idaho 272

In the Matter of the Petition of the IDAHO MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC., and HARRIET T. WILLMAN, Plaintiff in Intervention and Appellant, v. ALICE FRUITTS BUMGARNER, Defendant in Intervention and Respondent

No. 6207

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 16, 1936

INSURANCE - CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY - PRESUMPTION OF RECEIPT OF MAILED LETTER-STIPULATIONS, INTERPRETATION OF.

1. In action to determine beneficiary of life policy, insured's letter to insurer requesting change of beneficiary held admissible, although not on form supplied by insurer and not directed to then beneficiary, where insurer had no forms for change of beneficiary and policy reserved right of insured to change beneficiary without notice.

2. In action to determine beneficiary of life policy, where ruling on admissibility of letter requesting change of beneficiary was reserved, stipulation authorizing judgment for defendant if request for change of beneficiary had been received by insurer prior to insured's death held to authorize consideration of letter.

3. Letter which is properly mailed is presumed to have reached party to whom it was addressed in due course of mail.

4. Letter requesting change of beneficiary of life policy mailed by insured was presumed to have been received by insurer within short time following insured's death.

5. Under provision of life policy that beneficiary could be changed without notice, letter mailed by insured requesting change of beneficiary in compliance with requirements of insurer held sufficient designation of change of beneficiary.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. A. O. Sutton, Judge.

Action to determine the beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Judgment for defendant in intervention. Affirmed.

Judgment entered for respondent. Costs to respondent.

Geo Donart, for Appellant.

A judgment to be supported by the evidence must have a more substantial basis than mere surmise, supposition speculation, suspicion or conjecture as to the existence of a material fact necessary to support the judgment. (Osier v. Consumers' Co., 41 Idaho 268, 239 P. 735; United States Smelting etc. Co. v. Wallapai etc Co., 27 Ariz. 126, 230 P. 1009; Fisher v. Butte etc. R. Co., 72 Mont. 594, 235 P. 330.)

In order that a change of beneficiary may be effected, the provisions of the policy in that regard must be strictly followed. (Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 81 Cal.App. 546, 254 P. 306; Johnson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 56 Colo. 178, 138 P. 414, L. R. A. 1916A, 868, and note on page 877; Rumsey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 59 Colo. 71, 147 P. 337.)

An exhibit offered in evidence, being objected to and upon the admissibility of which the court makes no ruling, is not in evidence. (Stockton v. Dunham, 59 Cal. 609; Seeley v. Security Nat. Bank, 40 Idaho 574, 235 P. 976.)

D. L. Carter and A. L. Anderson, for Respondent.

Under the allegations of Harriet T. Willman's complaint and the answer thereto, her right as beneficiary must rest upon proof that the change of beneficiary from Gertrude Fruitts to Harriet T. Willman was made at the written request of John M. Fruitts.

"Where a letter purports to have been written by another person for the alleged sender, proof of the authority of the writer is necessary." (22 C. J. 908.)

The change of beneficiary may be effected without an indorsement on the policy. (37 C. J. 585 (text and notes following note, reference 43); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lowther, 22 Colo. 622, 126 P. 882; Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Burkholder, 131 Ore. 537, 283 P. 739.)

GIVENS, C. J. Budge, Holden, JJ., and MORGAN, J., Concurring. Ailshie, J., expresses no opinion.

OPINION

GIVENS, C. J.

J. M. Fruitts had a $ 1,000 life insurance policy in the Idaho Mutual Benefit Association with originally his wife, Gertrude M. Fruitts, as beneficiary. October 2, 1933, his wife having died, the Association changed the name of the beneficiary to Harriet T. Willman. Following J. M. Fruitts' death, the Idaho Mutual Benefit Association filed in the District Court a petition asking that the conflicting rights and claims of appellant and respondent to the $ 1,000 policy be determined, the money to be paid into court for that purpose, and made no resistance to either appellant's or respondent's claim. Appellant was Mr. Fruitts' housekeeper for a time at least following Mrs. Fruitts' death, respondent is his married daughter.

Respondent contends that the request for change of beneficiary from Mrs. Fruitts to Mrs. Willman was not in fact signed by Mr. Fruitts or authorized by him, and further rests her claim upon a later asserted request for change of beneficiary contained in defendant's Exhibit "9" as follows:

"I John M. Fruitts do hereby state that the change of beneficiary in my Life Insurance Policy in the Idaho Mutual Benefit Association said policy No. made on the day of 1933 in which said change the beneficiary was changed from Gertrude Fruitts to Harriett T. Willman was never by me intended to be such change but only intended to be made as security for the amount due to said Harriett T. Willman from me. Said sum being approximately the sum of $ 100.00.

"I hereby further state that I do hereby revoke the said change of beneficiary and request that the beneficiary be changed to my daughter Alice Fruitts Bumgarner of Nampa Idaho.

"I further state that the said insurance policy is now lost and can not be found and I request that a new policy be issued instead of the one now lost.

"X his mark

"JOHN M. FRUITTS.

"Signed in presence of CHAS. HOWLAND.

"D. L. CARTER.

"Dated Dec. 1, 1933.

"On this first day of December 1933 personally appeared John M. Fruitts, personally known to me to be the person who executing the foregoing statement and acknowledged to me that he did execute the same.

"My commission expires Jan. 19, 1937.

"D. L. CARTER

"Notary public

"Weiser, Idaho."

alleged to have been sent to the Idaho Mutual Benefit Association December 6, with this letter, defendant's Exhibit "8":

"December 6, 1933.

"Idaho Mutual Benefit Association

"Boise, Idaho

"Gentlemen:

"I am enclosing a statement that John M. Fruitts signed before a Notary Public, which I think is self explanatory. You will note that it is not the intention of Mr. Fruitts to avoid payment of his indebtedness to Mrs. Willman, but merely to make it plain he never intended an absolute assignment of the policy. I am not expressing an opinion as to whether Mrs. Willman was trying to impose upon Mrs. Fruitts or get any more than is justly due her, but at the same time the family thought this precaution should be taken and I think it is in accordance with the letter your office wrote concerning it.

"I presume these two assignments taken together would mean that in case of death, Mrs. Willman's name would be written upon the settlement check unless you should accept this as a complete revocation of the family assignment. You will note in this revocation that the policy number and date is blank on the first page. This was because Mr. Fruitt's daughter was wholly unable to find the policy. It occurs to me that probably Mrs. Willman had it. Please supply the dates.

"Please acknowledge receipt of this assignment. I rather expect to be in Boise soon and if so will try and call at your office.

"Very truly yours,

"(signed) D. L. CARTER."

The Association never acted upon this request for change of beneficiary and appellant objected to their introduction as follows:

"BY MR. ANDERSON: At this time we offer in evidence defendant's exhibits No. 8 and No. 9.

"BY MR. DONART: To which the plaintiff objects upon the ground that the same are incompetent, that they are irrelevant likewise, and likewise immaterial. That this objection I am making just goes to exhibit No. 9, in that it is or purports to be a written hearsay statement, self-serving statement signed by mark by John M. Fruitts, not executed in the presence of or addressed to the plaintiff Harriet T. Willman, and that it would constitute nothing more than an hearsay statement and has no more value as evidence as a written instrument than it would have as an oral statement; that it is immaterial in that it neither tends to prove or disprove any issue in this case, in that it is not an assignment or change of beneficiary of the policy sued upon of the type and manner required by the policy or the bylaws of the company; that it is not shown by the evidence that it was received by the insurance company during the lifetime of J. M. Fruitts, and that it does not in any sense constitute a change of beneficiary.

"We object to the introduction of exhibit No. 8 upon the ground it is a letter written by D. L. Carter to the Idaho Mutual Benefit Association--neither written by, addressed to, or ever received by the plaintiff Harriet T. Willman--containing self-serving statements or statements intended to serve and promote the interests of his client; and upon the further ground it is not shown that it was received during the lifetime of J. M. Fruitts in that the pleadings disclose J. M. Fruitts died on the 7th day of December, and the instrument is dated December 6th. There is no evidence as to whether or not it was mailed or when it was received.

"BY MR. ANDERSON: As to one point in Mr. Donart's objection, I think probably we should call and we are now waiting for a witness who we expect to put on the stand to testify to the mailing of these exhibits, and on that point I will ask permission to put on that proof. The remainder of the objection can stand."

As to appellant's contention that this request (defendant's Exhibit "9") for change of beneficiary was not on a form supplied by the company, the...