Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Monahon

• Decision Date: 13 October 1897
• Citation: 102 Ky. 13,42 S.W. 924
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. MONAHON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

42 S.W. 924

102 Ky. 13

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. MONAHON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 13, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Campbell county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Michael Monahon against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to recover money paid by plaintiff's wife to defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Wright & Anderson, for appellant.

Hawkins & Hawkins, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

The appellee, Michael Monahon, sought to recover of the appellant, the Metropolitan Insurance Company, $144.70, which he alleged had been paid by his wife in premiums on a certain policy which had been issued by the company on his life for the benefit of his wife. He contends that the policy was issued without his knowledge or consent; that the premiums were paid without his knowledge or consent; that he never made application for such policy of insurance; that he was never examined by any physician with a view of making such application. He alleges that his wife paid the premiums with his money. The answer does not deny the premiums were paid but it denies that they were paid without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, or with his money. The testimony conduces to prove that the policy of insurance was procured without the consent or knowledge of the appellee. If the wife, under such circumstances, used the money of her husband to pay the premiums on the policy, then the husband was entitled to recover from the company the sums so paid.

It is certainly against public policy for one to procure a policy of insurance on the life of another without such one's knowledge or consent. The wife has an insurable interest in the life of the husband; yet she could not obtain insurance upon his life without his knowledge and consent. Neither should the husband be allowed to procure a policy of insurance on the life of the wife without her knowledge and consent if such practice was indulged, it might be a fruitful source of crime. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that it was his money that was used in the payment of the premiums. The court seems to have properly instructed the jury. The question is whether the plaintiff established the fact that it was his money which the wife used in making the payments. He was the only witness introduced who attempted to show that the money with which these payments were made belonged to him. All he said with reference to...