King v. King

• Decision Date: 03 October 1932
• Docket Number: 30115
• Citation: 163 Miss. 584,143 So. 422
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: KING v. KING

143 So. 422

163 Miss. 584

KING v. KING

No. 30115

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 3, 1932

(Division A.)

1. LIFE ESTATES.

In absence of duty imposed upon, or agreement by, life tenant to insure property, remainderman has no interest in insurance.

2. LIFE ESTATES. Where life tenant insured building and household furnishings and paid premiums, remainderman, upon destruction of property by fire, held without interest in proceeds of insurance.

Life tenant was entitled to proceeds of fire insurance on building and household furniture, to exclusion of remainderman because the life tenant was under no duty to take out insurance for benefit of remainderman on property in which they both had an interest and because there was no duty imposed upon the life tenant to preserve the interest of the remainderman in the common property. Furthermore, the insurance was taken out by the life tenant and the premiums thereon paid by her.

Division A

APPEAL from chancery court of Chickasaw county.

HON JAS. A. FINLEY, Chancellor.

Suit by Charles Hill King against Mrs. Mamie Louise King and others. Decree in favor of the defendant named, and the complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Holmes & Potter, of Jackson, for appellant.

Public policy in construing the insurance contract, will not impute bad faith, or allow the life-tenant to insure and collect for destruction of the fee; at the same time keeping the proceeds of the destroyed building, nor replacing them. Public policy will construe the fairer view; that she secured protection, not only for herself, but also for the remaindermen.

Where a life tenant insures the property, collects the insurance money, and disavows any trust relation to the money collected or to the property in which he has invested it an action by remaindermen against the life tenant and others to declare a trust as to such money and property is a proper one for reference.

Green v. Green, 27 S.E. 953.

A life tenant holds the relation of an implied or quasi trustee to the remaindermen and any proceeds of a fire policy are subject to the laws regulating trusts.

Green v. Green, 27 S.E. 952.

One having only a life interest in the property, but insuring that interest in his own right and at his own expense, is entitled to the proceeds of the insurance, and the remainderman has no claim on such proceeds. But where the policy insures the whole property and is made payable to the life tenant, in case of a loss, the remainderman is entitled to the excess over the value of the life estate, especially where the insurance is taken out under an agreement with the remainderman to keep the property insured.

26 C. J. sec. 584, page 436.

The mere acceptance by a life tenant of a devise, of real estate containing a direction to keep in repair does not impose upon him the duty to rebuild, but a life tenant receiving insurance for the loss of a building by fire must hold any excess of the amount received over the value of his life interest as a trustee for the remainderman, unless the money is used to rebuild.

Sampson v. Grogan, 44 L.R.A. 711.

Apart from the life tenant's agreement to repair, a sound public policy would require that the money received by a life tenant on a loss by fire should be used in rebuilding; and if not so used, then to pay it over to the remainderman.

Welsh v. London Assur. Corp., 151 Pa. 607.

Where a life tenant is guardian for a remainderman, and takes out insurance in his own name on a dwelling on premises owned by him for life, and the remainderman in fee after the expiration of his life, the life tenant paving the premium with his own funds, and, upon the destruction of such dwelling by fire, collects the full insurance, which is equal to the value of both life and remainder estates, the proceeds of such insurance stand in the place of the property destroyed, and should be used in rebuilding the dwelling or should be held by the life tenant for the benefit of the remainder upon the life-tenant's death, in which case the life tenant would be entitled to the interest on the fund during his life.

Clark v. Leverett, 126 S.E. 258.

If the policy covers merely the life tenant's interest, he is entitled to the insurance in full; but if the policy is issued to him for the full value of the fee, and this amount is recovered by him, he is a trustee for the remainderman as to the excess of the amount received over the value of his life interest.

Sampson v. Grogan, 44 L.R.A. 711, 42 A. 712.

The Massachusetts doctrine is based upon two propositions. One is, that, in the absence of anything that requires it in the instrument creating the estate, or of an agreement to that effect on the part of the life-tenant, the life tenant is not bound to keep the promises insured for the benefit of the remainderman; that each can insure his own interest, but, in the absence of any agreement, neither has any claim upon the proceeds of the other's policy.

Clark v. Leverett, 126 S.E. 258.

Leftwich & Tubb, of Aberdeen, for appellee.

It is a rule universal that an, insurance policy contract is a contract of indemnity, whereby the insurance company agrees to indemnify the insured against loss or damage by reason of the casualty insured against. The insurance is not an incident to the land or to the personalty and does not run with the land, but is solely and alone for the benefit of the person in whose favor the insurance is written.

26 Corpus Juris, 434, secs. 581 and 582; 26 C. J. 34, sec. 17; 14 R. C. L. 87; Bernheim v. Beer, 56 Miss. 149; Home Ins. Company v. Gibson, 17 So. 13, 72 Miss. 58; Miss. Fire Insuraiiee Company v. Planters Bank, 103 So. 84, 138 Miss. 275; Pan Handle Oil Company v. Therrell, 131 So. 263; American Equitable Assurance Co. v. McWhirter, 133 So. 664, 160 Miss. 216; Quarles v. Clayton, Admr., 3 L.R.A. 170; Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 85 N.E. 592; McLean v. Hess, 7 M. E. 567; Shadgett v. Phillips & Crew Co., 31 So. 21; McLaughlin v. Park City Bank, 22 Utah 473, 54 L.R.A. 343; Cromwell v. The Brooklyn Fire Insurance Co., 44 N.Y. 42, 4 Am. Rep. 641; Zenor v. Hays, 228 Ill. 626, 81 N.E. 1144, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 909; Kortlander v. Elston, 52 F. 180; Harrison v. Pepper, 166 Mass. 288, 55 Am. St. R. 404, 33 L.R.A. 239; Thompson v. Gearheart, 137 Va. 427, 119 S.E. 67, 35 A.L.R. 36 and note; Miller v. Goldbeach Packing Company, 282 P. 764, 66 A.L.R. 858; Brownell v. Board of Ed., 239 N.Y. 369, 146 N.E. 630, 37 A.L.R. 1319 and note; Bennett v. Featherstone, 110 Tenn. 27, 71 S.W. 589; Spalding v. Miller, 103 Ky. 405, 45 S.W. 462; Saunders v. Armstrong, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1789, 61 S.W. 700; Smith v. Cameron, 158 Mich. 174, 122 N.W. 564; Blanchard v. Kingston, 222 Mich. 631, 193 N.W. 241.

In the absence of anything that requires it in the instrument creating the estate, or of any agreement to that effect on the part of the life tenant, the life tenant is not bound to keep the premises insured for the benefit of the remainderman. Each can insure his own interest, but, in the absence of any stipulation or agreement, neither has any claim upon the proceeds of the other's policy. The contract of insurance is a personal contract, and inures to the benefit of the party with whom it is made, and by whom the premiums are paid. It is a contract of indemnity against loss. The sum paid is in no proper or just sense the proceeds of the property. Nor can the defendant be converted into a trustee for the plaintiff by the mere fact that the amount which she received was equal to the full value of the house. It was paid to and reeeived by her as indemnity for the loss which she had sustained, and, does not stand in the place of the property insured.

Harrison v. Pepper, 166 Mass. 288, 55 Am. St. Rep. 404, 33 L.R.A. 239.

Where the life tenant has insured his life interest for an amount equal to the value of the fee, a trust does not result, either in the whole amount or in that part of it in excess of the value of the life estate, for the benefit of the remainderman.

Spalding v. Miller, 103 Ky. 405, 45 S.W. 462.

If the insured has an insurable interest in the property, he may effect an insurance as indemnity to him against loss by fire, or tornado, or other mishaps. That a life tenant, or owner of less than the complete title, may insure his interest against its loss by fire, is well established. The owner of the remainder or other interest may also have an insurance on the same property to protect himself from loss. If, however, the remainderman does not effect such an insurance, but the life tenant does, and a loss ensues, the former has no interest in the insurance fund. And it matters not to him whether the insured took indemnity greater than the value of his estate, for that is a question solely between the insurer and the insured.

Saunders v. Armstrong, 64 S.W. 700.

There is no legal, obligation on the part of the life tenant to take out insurance on the interest of the remainderman, and insurance taken out by the life tenant must be shown to have been stipulated or intended to cover the interest of the remainderman, and, unless such fact appears, it will be treated as a contract for personal indemnity to the life tenant, and he will be entitled to the proceeds to the exclusion of the remainderman.

Bennett v. Featherstone, 110, Tenn. 27, 71. S.W. 589; Smith v. Cameron, 158 Mich. 174, 122 N.W. 564; Thompson v. Gearhart, 137 Va. 427, 119 S.E. 67, 35 A.L.R. 36; Brownell v. Board of Ed., 239 N.Y. 369, 37 A.L.R. 1319; Miller v. Goldbeach Packing Co., 282 P. 764, 66 A.L.R. 858.

OPINION

McGowen, J.

The complainant, Charles Hill King, exhibited his bill in equity against Mamie Louise King and several insurance companies in which it was alleged that Charles Hill...