Jordan's Mut. Aid Ass'n Inc. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 26 March 1936
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 906
• Citation: 166 So. 780,232 Ala. 80
• Parties: JORDAN'S MUT. AID ASS'N Inc., v. EDWARDS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

166 So. 780

232 Ala. 80

JORDAN'S MUT. AID ASS'N Inc., v. EDWARDS.

6 Div. 906

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 26, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Action for damages by Lula Edwards, as administratrix of the estate of Carrie Washington, deceased, against Jordan's Mutual Aid Association, Inc. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

p>Page Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Jas Esdale and John T. Batten, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

BOULDIN Justice.

Action for damages from breach of the obligations of a burial insurance policy.

Jordan's Mutual Aid Association, Inc., issued a policy to Carrie Washington, whereby, in consideration of the payment of a weekly premium of 21 cents, and on receipt of proof of death etc., the insurer would pay to the mortician named in the policy for furnishing a funeral and services for the insured as provided therein to the retail value of $250.

The mortician named was Jordan Undertaking Company, connected with and having a common management with the insurer.

The policy named as "Beneficiary, Lula Edwards daughter."

The policy stipulated: "2. It shall be the privilege of the beneficiary named in the policy to select a Burial Society casket from the funeral home of the Mortician named herein, and it shall be the duty of the beneficiary to furnish full instructions to the Company or the mortician named herein as to the time and place of the funeral."

The policy further stipulated for embalming the body, transportation of a limited number to attend a local interment, or transportation of the body to a distant point.

The complaint alleges the mortician failed and refused to furnish a funeral of the retail value stipulated, denied to the beneficiary the privilege of selecting the casket as per contract, and instead used a cheap inexpensive casket of the mortician's own selection.

The action was brought by Lula Edwards, as administratrix of the estate of Carrie Washington, the insured. The policy was made part of the complaint. Demurrer raised the point that the suit must be brought by Lula Edwards, individually, as the beneficiary named in the policy, not by the personal representative of the insured.

The trial court overruled the demurrer. This ruling is here presented for review.

The nature and purpose of such insurance is the controlling inquiry.

It is not the purpose to create an estate for administration, the payment of debts, and distribution among next of kin. The end and aim is to provide for a proper burial and funeral when the occasion arrives.

This type of insurance is primarily for the poor. By a small weekly sum a fund is built up in the hands of the insurer. In this case the mortician to furnish the funeral is named; one identified with and having a common interest with the insurer.

To all intents and purposes we may say the insurer undertook here to furnish the funeral through its mortician of the value stipulated.

Naming the daughter, as beneficiary, had a distinct purpose disclosed in the policy. She was thus appointed by the insured as the one to fix the time and place of the funeral and interment, the one who should select the casket. She was the one to see that the contract was carried out. When she selected the casket, it was not for the administratrix to object. The contractual obligations, in our opinion, ran to her, as beneficiary.

It is...