Krumphorn v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 January 1938
• Citation: 114 S.W.2d 1125,272 Ky. 719
• Parties: KRUMPHORN v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

114 S.W.2d 1125

272 Ky. 719

KRUMPHORN v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

January 25, 1938

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1938.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County.

Action on life policies by Hazel Krumphorn against the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, which filed a cross-petition against Thomas M. Logan, administrator of the estate of the insured, Charles Kort, deceased. From a judgment on a directed verdict for the insurance company, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

C. B Shimer and F. J. Hanlon, both of Covington, for appellant.

John J Howe, of Covington, and Bruce & Bullitt, of Louisville, for appellee.

Thos M. Logan and Alton Purcell, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for Kort's Adm'r.

CREAL Commissioner.

On different dates, beginning May 15, 1915, the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, hereinafter designated as the company, issued four life insurance policies to Charles Kort in sums of $286, $348, $260, and $100, respectively. Either in the policies when issued or by indorsement thereon and in conformity with the provisions thereof, Effie Kort, to whom the insured was married after the first policy was issued was named or designated as beneficiary.

On September 30, 1930, Charles Kort, because of disability, gave up his employment as chef in a restaurant and on January 26, 1931, was adjudged to be of unsound mind and committed to the Central Insane Asylum at Lakeland, Ky. where he remained until his death on March 13, 1935. His wife, the designated beneficiary, had previously died on February 20, 1932. After the death of insured, Hazel Krumphorn, a daughter of Effie Kort by a former marriage, delivered the four policies and the premium receipt books to a local agent of the company, made proof of the death of the insured, and requested that a check for the proceeds of the policy be made to her.

On July 19, 1935, Thomas M. Logan was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of Charles Kort and upon his demand as such the company issued to him a check covering the proceeds of all the policies which, including dividends, or other accumulations, amounted to $1,005.07.

On July 20, 1935, Hazel Krumphorn instituted this action against the company seeking to recover the proceeds of all the policies. By her various pleadings she bases her right of recovery upon alleged facts which, in substance, are: That when insured gave up his position he and her mother were in destitute circumstances; that she went to their home and cared for and supplied all their needs at her own expense until after her stepfather was committed to the asylum and thereafter continued to do so for her mother until the latter's death; that she paid the premiums on their life insurance policies; that the agents of the company who collected the insurance premiums promised and represented to her that if she would pay the premiums the insurance would be paid to her in the event the beneficiary predeceased insured; that when she surrendered the policies and receipt books and made proof, the company's local agents promised that the check would be made to her; that by reason of these promises and representations on which she relied and but for which she would not have surrendered the policies, the company was estopped to assert or rely on its right to pay the proceeds of the policies to any other person.

The company made a general denial of the allegations of the petition and set up provisions in the policies to the effect that modification, changes, or alteration could only be made by indorsement on the policy signed by designated officers and that agents had no authority to waive or extend any of the terms and conditions therein and averred that the alleged agreement that the policies or any part thereof would be paid to appellant was not made by any of the officers referred to in such provisions and was not contained in any of the policies and no agent had authority to bind the company by such agreement. It set up the terms of the policies as to how and to whom payment might be made as appears in the hereinafter quoted provision of the policies and alleged in substance that under such provision payment was made to the administrator in full satisfaction of the policies as therein provided. It made its answer a cross-petition against the administrator and alleged in substance that if plaintiff was entitled to the proceeds of the policies or any part thereof, the payment was made to the administrator under mistake of law and fact, and, if it be so adjudged, the administrator should be required to return such sums to it or to the plaintiff in satisfaction of all demands.

The administrator controverted the allegations of the cross-petition against him. Trial resulted in a directed verdict for the company, and plaintiff is appealing from a judgment entered in conformity therewith.

The only point made under heading of points and authorities accompanying brief for appellant is that...