Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sandstrand
| Decision Date | 01 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 2065,2065 |
| Citation | 78 R.I. 457,82 A.2d 863 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. SANDSTRAND et al. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Arthur L. Conaty, Providence, for respondent Elsie E. Miller sandstrand.
Greenough, Lyman & Cross and Owen P. Reid, all of Providence for respondent Esther A. Taylor.
This bill in equity was brought by an insurer to have two claimants interplead for the proceeds of a policy of life insurance. In the superior court a decree of interpleader was duly entered, the proceeds of the policy were paid into court, and the case was heard on the second amended bill of complaint, answers filed by the respondents, and evidence. A final decree was entered awarding the proceeds of said policy to the respondent Esther A. Taylor, and from that decree respondent Elsie E. Miller Sandstrand has duly claimed an appeal to this court.
The complainant is the insurer under a policy of life insurance issued by it to Gustaf A. Miller, now deceased. The respondents Elsie E. Miller Sandstrand and Esther A. Taylor, hereinafter referred to respectively as Elsie and Esther, are married daughters of the insured. Upon the death of the father each respondent made claim upon the complainant for payment of the proceeds of the policy. Thereafter the insurer brought the instant bill of interpleader and paid the proceeds of $1,038.14 into the registry of the court under the decree therein entered.
The evidence for Esther tended to show the following facts. The original beneficiary named in the policy was the insured's wife, Emelia W. Miller. The policy contained a clause expressly reserving to the insured the right to change the beneficiary in accordance with certain procedures therein stated. Upon the wife's death in 1942 the insured, who was retired from his employment, continued to live with Elsie. Subsequently differences arose between the father and Elsie over the latter's prospective husband, and the father left the house and went to live with Esther.
When the father was leaving Elsie's home he asked for the policy but she refused to give it to him. Because of her remarks he then engaged a law firm to obtain the policy in order to make a desired change in the beneficiary to Esther, and to bring a law action against Elsie for the recovery of certain property. His attorneys made formal demand on Elsie for delivery of the policy but this was refused by her upon advice of her own counsel.
The father's attorneys also notified the insurer of the insured's intent to change the beneficiary to Esther and directed the company not to pay the proceeds thereof to Elsie or to anybody other than Esther. The same attorneys then obtained from the company's local office a printed form which was provided and used by the insurer for a change of beneficiary. This was filled out in part by the attorneys and in part by Esther, but it was later executed and acknowledged on July 26, 1945 by the insured personally in the office of his attorneys with whom he left it with instructions to accomplish such change. This form designated Esther as beneficiary and made the policy payable to her.
Apparently the form remained in the attorneys' office from July 26 to October 22, 1945, without being mailed to the home office of the insurer. From a statement in a letter to the company, however, it appears that the attorneys felt the policy would be obtained when the law action against Elsie was adjusted. In addition during that period the father had sought on three occasions to obtain the policy from Elsie but was twice refused and on the third visit Elsie was not at home. New locks had been placed upon the doors to which he formerly had keys.
Subsequently on October 21, 1945 the insured was struck by an automobile and sustained serious injuries. The next day in the hospital he again talked with Esther and told her to go to the attorneys and find out if they had succeeded in obtaining the policy and making the change of beneficiary as instructed. When informed by Esther on her return from the attorneys that they had forwarded the change of beneficiary that day to the company's Providence office, he expressed satisfaction by stating that she 'would have the insurance policy now--'You can take care of things and see that I am buried right." The insured died on October 23, 1945 from injuries received in the accident, and his funeral was arranged for by Esther.
On the other hand the testimony for Elsie tends to show the following facts. For many years she had lived with her father and mother and had worked hard. After her mother's death Elsie continued to live with her father and he designated her as beneficiary under the policy on December 11, 1942. A friend of the family, named Sandstrand, frequently visited their home and sometime after the father went to live with Esther, Sandstrand married Elsie. According to her there was no difficulty or quarrel between her and her father in connection with Sandstrand, and she denied using any harsh words to her father when he was leaving as testified to by Esther. She stated that he had never asked for the policy before or after he left; that he had come to visit her only once and then did not seek the policy; and that the new locks had been placed on the doors, not to keep him out but to protect the house during her stay in New Hampshire where Sandstrand owned a home. She also testified that her father had received and taken with him everything he desired, and that she was the executrix named in his will.
She further gave considerable testimony in detail as to her work with her father and mother while her mother was living; the care she gave her father until he left; and Esther's receipt of considerable money from the father in order to help her to build a new house. Although Elsie admitted the receipt of $26 a month from her father while he lived with her, she testified that she paid the $11 monthly premium on the insurance policy out of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widows Fund of Sudan Temple v. Umphlett
...payment of the sum owing into court. Equitable Life Insurance Company v. Fourman, Ohio App., 135 N.E. 2d 878; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sandstrand, 78 R.I. 457, 82 A.2d 863; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Patterson, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 759; 19 A.L.R.2d 108, and cases cited in § 42. As......
-
Hall v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...Minn. 104, 109 N.W.2d 147, 150–51 (1961); Faircloth v. Coleman, 211 Ga. 356, 86 S.E.2d 107, 109–10 (1955); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Sandstrand, 78 R.I. 457, 82 A.2d 863, 865–66 (1951); Wilkie v. Phila. Life Ins. Co., 187 S.C. 382, 197 S.E. 375, 380, 382 (S.C.1938). In applying the substantia......
-
Confederation Life Ass'n v. Allinson
...this is a bill of interpleader and not an action at law, it is our opinion that the reasoning of the court in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sandstrand, 78 R.I. 457, 82 A.2d 863, is applicable. Although it differs factually from the case at bar, the principle involved is the In Sandstrand, a......
-
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Sheridan
...intention to change the beneficiary, his acts will be given effect. Sanborn v. Black, 67 N.H. 537, 35 A. 942; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sandstrand, 78 R.I. 457, 82 A.2d 863; Alfama v. Rose, 323 Mass. 643, 83 N.E.2d 868; Annot. 19 A.L.R.2d 10, 65-76; Annot. 78 A.L.R. 970, 974; See Metrop......