Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Woolf

• Decision Date: 22 June 1945
• Docket Number: 148/238.
• Citation: 42 A.2d 866
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. WOOLF et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

42 A.2d 866

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

v.WOOLF et al.

148/238.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 22, 1945.

Proceeding between the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Helen Welstead Woolf and others to determine the right to proceeds of an insurance policy paid into court by complainant.

Award in accordance with opinion.

Syllabus by the Court

.

A certificate of insurance issued under a group policy of life insurance may be assigned as a gift inter vivos.

A certificate of insurance provided that if there was no designated beneficiary at the time the insurance became payable, the proceeds would be payable to the insured's wife, if living; if not living, to his children surviving him. The certificate originally named the insured's wife as beneficiary; she predeceased him and he named no new beneficiary under the certificate and made parol assignment thereof to his children. He subsequently remarried. Held, that on the insured's death his children became entitled to the insurance proceeds by virtue of the assignment of the certificate to them.

The fact that after the insured had made a gift of the certificate to his children it remained in his possession until his death does not, under the circumstances surrounding the gift, indicate the insured's intention to exercise dominion or control over it.

John E. Toolan, of Perth Amboy, for defendant Helen Welstead woolf.

Saul Nemser, of Jersey City (Abner W. Feinberg, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants George Woolf et al.

FIELDER, Vice Chancellor.

Carroll L. Woolf held a certificate of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. dated April 1, 1943, certifying that under the conditions of a group policy issued to his employer he was insured for $20,000 which on his death would be paid to his then wife Mary E. Woolf named therein as beneficiary, with the right reserved to the insured to change beneficiary. The certificate provides that in case the beneficiary should die before the insured, the interest of the beneficiary shall vest in the insured. It further provides that if there be no designated beneficiary at the time when any insurance shall be payable, then the proceeds shall be payable to the insured's wife or husband, if living; if not living, to the children of the insured who survive him, equally. It has printed thereon the words, ‘The insurance herein set forth is non-assignable.’ For the purposes of this case I can see no difference between such a certificate and an ordinary life insurance policy, and for convenience I will speak of it as the policy.

Mary E. Woolf, the beneficiary named in the policy, died April 8, 1943, and the insured then had three living children, namely, George, Carroll and Cornelius Roy, who claim that a few days after the burial of their mother their father orally assigned and transferred his policy to them. The insured married again Oct. 17, 1943, his second wife's name being Helen W. Woolf, and he died July 27, 1944. At no time did the insured attempt to have a change in beneficiary endorsed on his policy, nor did he give the insurer notice of assignment thereof. After his death claims were made on the insurer for payment of the amount due under the policy, on the one hand by insured's second wife and on the other by his three children, whereupon the insurer paid the amount into court and the contest here is between the respective claimants. The claim of insured's widow is based wholly on the fact that she is his widow and as such is entitled to the fund under the terms of the policy. The claim of the children is based on the aforesaid oral assignment.

The insured resided in a home owned by himself and his first wife as tenants by the entirety. It was also the home of his deceased wife and of his unmarried sons Carroll and Cornelius Roy (the latter known as Roy); his son George, who was married, lived in a nearby home of his own. When the mother died Carroll and Roy were in the United States Army and both obtained leave of absence to attend their mother's funeral. At the date of the hearing of the cause Carroll was in service in Germany and could not attend. Roy holds the rank of first lieutenant and has had three years service in the Army Air Force and the proof to support the claim of the sons depends entirely on his testimony considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances. His testimony is summarized as follows:

A day or two after Roy's mother's funeral his father called him to his (father's) room and said, ‘There are certain things we don't care to talk about. However, there are times when it is necessary to do so. We never know when anything is going to happen to us', and he advised Roy to have payment under his government insurance changed from his mother to his father. At that time the father took from his bureau drawer a large leather wallet or pouch and from the wallet the father took the policy on Roy's life, also the policy here under consideration and he handed the latter to Roy and said, ‘I want you three boys to have this policy and its proceeds as a present for your future protection in case anything happens to me, and I want you three boys to have this house.’ Roy held his father's policy at few moments and handed it back to his father, who returned it to the wallet, saying, ‘I will put it in here with the rest of the family papers so that you will know where it is in case it is necessary for you to find it’, and his father placed the policy in the wallet and put the wallet back in his bureau drawer. A week later Roy returned to his station taking his own government policy with him and caused change of beneficiary to his father to be made therein, after which he sent his policy to his father. Roy never had possession again of the policy on his father's life after the few moments he had it in his hand a day or two after his mother's funeral, and he never saw it thereafter until it was found in the wallet after his father's death. Roy was back home in July, 1943, for ten days and after that stay he did not return home again until August, 1944.

The insured continued to live in his home after his first wife's death until the end of September, 1943, and after he remarried he...