Minton v. Minton
| Decision Date | 26 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 23876 |
| Citation | 170 Okla. 274,1934 OK 385,39 P.2d 538 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | MINTON v. MINTON et al. |
¶0 1. Insurance--Process-- Foreign Insurance Company Held "Doing Business in State" Under Statute Relating to Service of Process.
Where a foreign insurance company takes over insurance on the life of a resident of Oklahoma from an insurance company authorized to do business in the state that was solicited in Oklahoma and on which the premiums had been paid in Oklahoma, and continues the insurance in force, collecting the premiums in Oklahoma as they mature, it is doing business in Oklahoma.
2. Same--Action Against Foreign Company Maintainable in Any County and Summons Issuable to Another County for Joint Defendant.
An action against a foreign insurance company may be maintained in any county in the state, under the provisions of section 115, O. S. 1931, service upon it may be made by serving the Secretary of State, where the State Insurance Commissioner has not been designated service agent, under the provisions of section 10568, O. S. 1931, and when sued jointly with another defendant, summons may be issued to another county for the joint defendant, under the provisions of section 167, O. S. 1931.
3. Insurance--Divorced Wife not Entitled to Proceeds of Fraternal Insurance Certificate Though Named as Beneficiary.
Under the provisions of section 10564, O. S. 1931, a divorced wife, who, at the time of the death of the insured under a fraternal insurance certificate, is not a member of the family, heir, blood relative, affianced husband or wife or dependent upon the insured, cannot take the proceeds of such a certificate though named therein as a beneficiary.
4. Same--Eligibility of Beneficiary Under Statute not Subject to Waiver of Objections by Insurer.
The rule as to waiver of objections to the beneficiary does not apply where the qualifications of a beneficiary are prescribed by statute, for the reason that an association has no power to waive statutory requirement governing its own conduct; nor can it estop itself from questioning the eligibility of a beneficiary upon those grounds.
5. Same.
Where the name of a person who does not belong to the class which, by the rules of the order and the statute regulating such association, is entitled to become a beneficiary, is inserted in a benefit certificate, such person has no right to receive any part of the benefit fund, and the acceptance of assessments paid will not confer such right.
6. Same--Question of Disqualification of Divorced Wife to Take Death Benefits May Be Raised by Any Interested Party.
Questions of disqualifications of divorced wife to take death benefits under the provisions of section 10564, O. S. 1931, may be raised by any interested party as against contention that only insurer could raise point.
Rehearing Denied January 14, 1935.
Appeal from District Court, Pottawatomie County; Hal Johnson, Judge.
Action by Minnie Minton, for herself, and for minor child, Oscar H. Minton, Jr., against Rosa Minton and the Occidental Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Minton appeals. Affirmed.
Lee M. Gray and T. R. Blaine, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. E. Wells, A. J. Carlton, and L. D. Akin, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Pottawatomie county.
¶2 The record discloses that Western Masons' Mutual Life Association issued two certificates as policies of insurance on the life of Oscar H. Minton, naming "Rosa Minton, his wife" as the beneficiary therein. The insured lived in Oklahoma and paid his insurance premiums in Oklahoma. These certificates of insurance were assumed and taken over by the Occidental Life Insurance Company of California. Prior to the death of Oscar H. Minton he was divorced by Rosa Minton, and he had legally married Minnie Minton, with whom he lived at the time of his death. Rosa Minton presented her claim to the Occidental Life Insurance Company for the insurance. Minnie Minton, the widow of the deceased, brought suit for herself and for her son, Oscar H. Minton, Jr., child of the deceased, against Rosa Minton and the Occidental Life Insurance Company to recover the insurance. The defendant Rosa Minton filed her answer and cross-petition setting up her claims to the insurance money.
¶3 The defendant Occidental Insurance Company filed its answer. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs upon the pleadings, and the defendant Rosa Minton appealed to this court. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant, as they appeared in the trial court.
¶4 In the seventh specification of error it is contended that the trial court erred in overruling the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, the Occidental Life Insurance Company being a foreign corporation and not licensed to do business in Oklahoma, and neither defendant could be properly served in Pottawatomie county.
¶5 The defendants, Rosa Minton and the Occidental Life Insurance Company, filed motions in the trial court to quash service of process. Rosa Minton lived in Kingfisher county and the suit was brought in Pottawatomie county. Had Rosa Minton been the sole defendant, her contention would have had some merit. The other defendant, the Occidental Life Insurance Company, filed also a special plea to the jurisdiction of the trial court, alleging its organization and existence under the laws of the state of California, and alleging that it had never done business within the state of Oklahoma nor entered the state for any purpose whatever.
¶6 Both parties hereto rely upon the fact that the Occidental Life Insurance Company assumed the obligations set forth in the policies or certificates of insurance issued by the Western Masons' Mutual Life Association on the life of Oscar H. Minton, deceased, and here sued upon. The certificate of the assumption of that liability is filed as an exhibit in the record. It is admitted that the Western Masons' Mutual Life Association did qualify and do business in Oklahoma. The policies of insurance in question were solicited in Oklahoma and the premiums paid by the insured while living in Oklahoma. The contracts of insurance were continued in Oklahoma by the Occidental Life Insurance Company and the premiums collected as they came due, and that was sufficient to show that the Occidental Life Insurance Company was doing business in Oklahoma up to the time of the death of the insured. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Slinker, 42 Okla. 811, 143 P. 41; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602, 19 S. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569, and cases therein cited. The defendant being a foreign insurance company, the action could be brought in any county (section 115, O. S. 1931), and a summons may be issued to another county against one or more defendants. Section 167, O. S. 1931; Miller v. Thompson, 119 Okla. 171, 249 P. 308. The Occidental Life Insurance Company having failed to appoint the Insurance Commissioner upon whom service could be made, as required by section 10568, O. S. 1931, service upon the Secretary of State was sufficient to obtain jurisdiction of the Occidental Life Insurance Company. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Slinker, supra.
¶7 The Occidental Life Insurance Company filed its answer in the nature of an interplea when its plea to the jurisdiction was overruled. By authority of the court it tendered and paid into court the amount due on the certificates of insurance and the maturing dividends and was discharged from further liability. The Occidental Life Insurance Company did not appeal from the order of the court as to the court's jurisdiction, and appears here only as a nominal party defendant.
¶8 The defendant Rosa Minton is in no position to complain as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the Occidental Life Insurance Company. In paragraph 2 of her answer she alleged "that the Western Masons' Mutual Life Association and the Occidental Life Insurance Company were and now are corporations duly organized under the laws of the state of California, with lawful authority to issue certificates of life insurance and lawfully doing business in the state of Oklahoma by license." She certainly cannot now rely upon her motion to quash summons.
¶9 The defendant's fourth, fifth, and tenth specifications of error pertain to the court's rendering judgment for the plaintiffs on the pleadings and its failure to render judgment on the pleadings for the defendant Rosa Minton.
¶10 There is no dispute in the pleadings that Oscar H. Minton was issued the two certificates sued upon; that Rosa Minton, his wife at the time, was made beneficiary in both certificates; that in 1919 she obtained a divorce from Oscar H. Minton; that, in 1921 Oscar H. Minton and Minnie Minton, one of the plaintiffs herein, were legally married and had one son, O. H. Minton, Jr., that Oscar H. Minton, the insured, died in 1931, and that both certificates were in full force and effect at that time. As to the contention of Rosa Minton that the beneficiary in the certificates had never been changed, and the reply of Minnie Minton that it had been changed by operation of law, those were contentions of law for determination by the court.
¶11 Under proposition 4, at pages 14 and 15 of the defendant's brief, five contentions are presented and will be considered here together.
¶12 It is first contended that a decree of divorce does not terminate the insurance interest of a married woman named as beneficiary in an insurance policy of her husband. That contention may or may not be true, depending entirely upon the kind of a policy.
¶13 In Pendleton v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co. et al., 135 Okla. 40, 273 P. 1007, this court held:
"A married woman named as beneficiary in an ordinary life insurance policy on the life of her husband is entitled to the proceeds, notwithstanding that she has obtained a divorce before...
To continue reading
Request your trial