National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ball
| Decision Date | 31 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28556 |
| Citation | 157 Miss. 163,127 So. 268 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. BALL |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, Second district, HON GEO. W. CURRIE, Special Judge.
(Division B.)
1 INSURANCE. Life insurance. Insurable interest.
To have "insurable interest" in another's life, there must be reasonable ground, founded upon relations of parties to expect advantage from continuance of assured's life.
2 INSURANCE. Life insurance. Insurable interest. Son-in-law.
Relationship by affinity is not alone sufficient to confer insurable
interest on son-in-law.
3. INSURANCE. Life insurance. Insurable interest. Insured's consent. Where son-in-law had no insurable interest in insured's life, it was immaterial that insured consented to transaction.
4. INSURANCE. Insurable interest. Estoppel. Collecting premiums.
Son-in-law having no insurable interest in insured's life could not recover on policy, notwithstanding insurer collected premiums from son-in-law though knowing want of insurable interest.
The contract being in contravention of public policy, the individual interests of the immediate parties are subordinated to the superior concern of the public in general.
APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, Second district, HON. GEO. W. CURRIE, Special Judge.
Action by Frank Ball against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Judgment reversed.
W. J. Pack and W. L. Pack, Jr., both of Laurel, for appellant.
It is against public policy to allow one person to have insurance on the life of another without the consent of the latter.
37 C. J., p. 381, section 45; 56 L.R.A., p. 585; L.R.A. 1918F, 574; Chicago Guaranty Fund Life Society v. Dyon, 79 Ill.App. 100; 56 L.R.A. 590.
Conceding that the policy was procured, and the beneficiary named, with the consent of the insured, still the policy was void because appellee had no insurable interest in her life.
Murphy v. Red, 64 Miss. 614, 1 So. 761; 37 C. J., p. 385, section 51; 14 R. C. L., p. 905, et seq.; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 21 L.Ed. 924.
It is not easy to define with precision, what will in all cases constitute an insurable interest, so as to take the contract out of the class of wager policies. But in all cases there must be a reasonable ground, founded upon the relation of the parties to each other, either pecuniary or of blood or affinity, to expect some benefit or advantage from the continuance of the life of the assured. Otherwise the contract is a mere wager, by which the party taking the policy is directly interested in the early death of the assured. Such policies have a tendency to create a desire for the event. They are, therefore, independently of any statute on the subject, condemned as being against public policy.
14 R. C. L., pp. 919-920; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 26 L.Ed. 924.
But even conceding that appellee was the son-in-law of the insured at the time the policy was issued, that fact would give him no insurable interest in her life.
14 R. C. L., pp. 921-922; 37 C. J., p. 395, section 60; Rombach v. Piedmont & A. L. Insurance Company, 35 La. Ann. 233, 48 Am. Rep. 239, Cited in 56 L.R.A. 590; American Insurance Union v. Manes (Ark.), 234 S.W. 496, 18 A.L.R. 1161.
It was only by her death that he could profit. The policy is clearly a mere wagering contract and is void.
Collins & Collins, of Laurel, for appellee.
The company by issuing a policy to a son-in-law on the life of his father-in-law with knowledge of the relationship, may be estopped to deny the validity of the policy.
37 C. J. 398; Smith v. Peoples' Mut. Ben., 19 N.Y.S. 432, 534; Sec. 64, Hemingway's Code.
There is no question of insurable interest in this case because insured could have any one named she wanted to name. Even if there was a question of insurable interest, the son-in-law's relation to his mother-in-law and his care and support of her gave him an insurable interest. And even if he had no other than she being his mother-in-law, the company is estopped under the facts of this case to deny the validity of the policy.
In order that there may be an insurable interest in the life of another, Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 779, 26 L.Ed. 924; 14 R. C. L., p. 919; 37 C. J., p. 391.
In this case the policy was taken out and the premiums...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Weldon
...an insurable interest. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Middlebrooks, 27 Ala.App. 247, 170 So. 84; National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ball, 157 Miss. 163, 127 So. 268; Cooley's Briefs on Insurance (Second Ed.), Vol. 1, pp. 386, Most certainly the evidence in this case does not show as......
-
First-Columbus Nat. Bank v. D. S. Pate Lumber Co.
... ... 1 ... INSURANCE ... "Life ... insurance policy" is contract to pay specific sum on ... and another, in which the First-Columbus National Bank, as ... executor, was substituted as complainant ... Conn ... Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Schaeffer, 94 U.S. 457, 24 ... L.Ed. 251 ... National ... Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Ball, 126 So ... 268, 157 Miss. 163; ... ...
-
Neely v. Pigford
... ... required under accident policies. From an adverse judgment, ... defendant appeals ... Scottish ... Union & Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Warren Gee Lbr. Co., ... 80 So. 9; Ins. Co. v ... the case ... Hoke v ... National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 103 Miss. 269, 60 So. 218 ... National ... Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ball, 127 So. 268 ... In ... order that an ... ...
-
Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Gatchell
...555 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Se. Fid. Ins. Co. v. Gann, 340 So. 2d 429, 434 (Miss. 1976); Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ball, 157 Miss. 163, 127 So. 268, 268 (Miss. 1930)).1 The rationale for the rule is to prevent one without an interest in property from wagering on its de......