Motley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | 20393 |
| Citation | 178 S.W.2d 791 |
| Parties | MARY MOTLEY, ADMINISTRATRIX, ESTATE OF AMANDA NEAVES, Deceased, Respondent v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Corporation, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT FINAL UNTIL EXPIRATION OF THE REHEARING PERIOD.
APPEAL FROM JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.
Judgment Reversed.
Shain, P. J., absent.
Nick T Cave
This is a suit on a policy of industrial insurance issued by defendant company on the life of Amanda Neaves, and brought by plaintiff as administratrix, to recover the sum of $ 390.00, with interest, penalties and attorneys' fees.
The policy was issued on February 21, 1903, and provided for the payment of a definite amount as an endowment to the insured, on the anniversary thereof next after insured shall have passed the age of 79 years. It designated insured's estate as beneficiary, and contained what is known as a "facility of payment" clause, granting to the defendant the option to pay said policy, in the event of insured's prior death, to either the beneficiary named in said policy, or to the executor or administrator, husband or wife, or any relative by blood of the insured, and further provided that the production of a receipt signed by either of said persons should be conclusive evidence that all claims under the policy had been satisfied. The policy was in force at the date of insured's death, December 16, 1939.
The petition pleads the issuance of the policy, the death of the insured while the policy was in force, the making of due proof of death, and the plaintiff's appointment and qualification as administratrix of insured's estate.
The answer admits the issuance of the policy, the payment of premiums, pled the terms and provisions of the "facility of payment" clause, and also the prevision that the insured could change the beneficiary without said beneficiary's consent. That on or about November 17, 1936, Amanda Heaves executed on a form furnished by the defendant a "Declaration of Loss of Policy", wherein she declared that she was the owner of said policy and had been paying the premium thereon, that said policy had been lost or destroyed and had not been sold, assigned or transferred to any other person and that she had no knowledge as to its present whereabouts and requested of the defendant a duplicate thereof, or a policy certificate to replace the same; that pursuant to said declaration of loss of policy, defendant issued and delivered to the said Amanda Weaves a certificate of lost policy; that said certificate bore the same number as the original policy and that the amount payable on the anniversary date of said policy was the sum of $ 325.00; that at the same time the said Amanda Neaves made written application on a form furnished by the defendant to change the beneficiary named in said policy to Daisy M. Neaves and Harry Neaves, her son and daughter-in-law; that thereafter said application so designating said parties as beneficiaries was forwarded to the home office of the defendant and such designated beneficiaries were endorsed on said lost policy certificate, on or about the 18th day of December, 1936; that after the death of the said Amanda Neaves, claim in writing was made upon defendant for the proceeds of said numbered policy by the said Daisy M. Neaves and Harry Neaves, the designated beneficiaries in said lost policy certificate, accompanied by proof of death of the insured and evidence of premium payments and said lost policy certificate; that on or about January 29, 1940, defendant paid the amount due on said policy to the said Daisy M. Neaves and Harry Neaves, taking their receipt therefor and that they were paid as provided in said "facility of payment" provision of said policy and that by reason thereof, the defendant was released and discharged from further liability thereon.
Plaintiff's reply was to the effect that the application for "Declaration of Loss of Policy" which was furnished defendant was secured from the insured through trickery and fraud and that in truth and fact she had not signed and executed the same, and that said original policy was not in fact lost or destroyed; and that the defendant knew that the plaintiff, in her individual capacity as daughter of the insured, had made claim for the payment of said policy and had been paying the premiums thereon, and that her claim was adverse to the claim of the said Daisy and Harry Neaves.
The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 398.25. Motion for new trial overruled, and this appeal resulted.
The cause was submitted to the jury on this theory: "* * * if you find and believe from the evidence that the defendant had an opportunity to know, and did know, that the alleged duplicate policy was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, if you find that there was misrepresentation and fraud practiced by the claims-ants, Daisy Neaves and Harry Neaves, and that at the time said claim was submitted it had full and complete knowledge of the conflicting or adverse claim of Mary Motley in her individual capacity, as well as her possible administrative capacity, if you so find, then the sum or amount paid by the defendant to Daisy Neaves and Harry Neaves was paid at its peril."
Defendant assigns error in the failure of the court to give its instruction in the nature of a demurrer at the close of the evidence, and also errors in the giving of certain instructions. If the first contention is sound, others need not be considered.
The evidence discloses that this policy contained what is generally known as a "facility of payment" clause, such as is usually contained in these industrial policies. Such provision is:
"In case of such prior death of the insured, the company may pay the amount due under this policy to either the beneficiary named above or to the executor or administrator, husband or wife, or any relative by blood of the insured, and the production of a receipt signed by either of them shall be conclusive evidence that all claims under this policy have been satisfied."
The policy also provided that the insured could change the beneficiary therein.
It also appears that on November 17, 1936, on a form furnished by defendant, the insured declared the policy in question had been lost, and requested a duplicate thereof, or a certificate to replace it, and on the same day made application on a form furnished by defendant, designating her son, Harry Neaves, and daughter-in-law, Daisy M. Neaves, as beneficiaries of her insurance. In response to this request, defendant issued to her a lost policy certificate wherein Harry Neaves and Daisy M. Neaves were named beneficiaries.
Plaintiff produced evidence to the effect that the signature of Amanda Neaves, insured, to such applications, was not her genuine signature; while Harry and Daisy M. Neaves produced evidence that it was her genuine signature. There was no evidence in the record which tended to prove that the defendant had any knowledge that the signature of Amanda Neaves to such applications was not genuine or that any contention was being made that such signatures were not genuine, prior to the time it made the payment to Harry Neaves and Daisy M. Neaves.
On her death, Amanda Neaves left surviving five children, three sons and two daughters, one of whom was Mary Motley, who lived in Kansas City, Missouri. Harry and Daisy Neaves lived in Fort Scott, Kansas. The other daughter lived in Paola, Kansas, one son lived in St. Joseph, Missouri, and the other in Kansas City, Kansas. During the last three or four years of Amanda's life, she had lived with her respective children at different times. The evidence was conflicting as to which place she considered her home.
Following the death of the insured, Mary Motley, daughter of the insured, made claim for the proceeds of said policy as one coming within the "facility of payment" clause. This claim was made in her individual capacity. Claim was also made for the proceeds of said policy by Harry and Daisy M. Neaves, insured's son and daughter-in-law, the son being a person coming within the "facility of payment" clause, and both the son and daughter-in-law being the designated beneficiaries in the lost policy certificate. The defendant recognized the claim of Harry and Daisy Neaves, and made payment to them on January 29, 1940. Approximately seven months after such payment, Mary Motley applied to the Probate Court of Jackson County, Missouri, for letters and was appointed administratrix of the estate of the insured, and instituted this suit on behalf of...
To continue reading
Request your trial