North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 21 May 1931
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 876.
• Citation: 134 So. 850,223 Ala. 104
• Parties: NORTH CAROLINA MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MARTIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

134 So. 850

223 Ala. 104

NORTH CAROLINA MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MARTIN.

6 Div. 876.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. M. Walker, Judge.

Bill to reform a policy of life insurance by Ace Thomas Martin against the North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals.

Affirmed.

Huey Welch & Stone, of Bessemer, for appellant.

G. M Edmonds, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BOULDIN J.

The bill is for the reformation of a policy of life insurance.

Complainant claims to be the beneficiary named in the policy; and, upon the death of the insured prior to the filing of the bill entitled to the proceeds.

The matter of reformation is an alleged mistake in the name of the beneficiary, complainant, as written into the policy.

Complainant in the bill, gives his name as "Ace Thomas Martin," also known and called "A. C. Thomas Martin," and in the prayer is further called "Acy Thomas Martin."

In the policy of insurance, made exhibit to the bill, as copied in the record before us, under the heading "Name of Beneficiary," appears "A. C. Thomas, _____ N."

The bill avers that, in the application for insurance, the insured requested defendant, the insurer, to make "A. C Thomas Martin" beneficiary, but by mistake the insurer inserted "A. C. Thomas _____ N."

The application is not embodied in, attached, to, nor incorporated by reference into the policy.

The policy stipulates that it contains the entire contract.

The contract cannot, therefore, be held self-correcting, affording adequate remedy at law.

The application, on proper predicate, would be evidence in a direct proceeding for reformation; but, not being a part of the contract, it could not be received at law for purposes of self-correction, nor to vary the terms of the policy as to the person intended. 37 C.J. 410. The policy knows no man by the name of "Martin." The only surname there shown is "Thomas." Whatever name was in the application, the insurer may have changed his purpose and named "A. C. Thomas" in the policy.

In any event, a direct proceeding for reformation affords a clearer more adequate remedy. Burt v. Burt, 221 Pa. 171, 70 A. 710. We reach such conclusion without regard to Code, § 8371. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Knight, 9 Ala. App. 428, 64 So. 196; Royal Neighbors of America v. Fortenberry, 214 Ala. 387, 107 So. 846.

The name inserted in the policy indicates the draftsmen thought the name of the beneficiary was "A. C. Thomas," and so inserted the name, followed by some descriptive word ending with "M," probably intending to insert the omitted letters when known.

It does not follow there was no meeting of the minds as to naming a third person beneficiary nor as to the identity of such person.

The policy clearly discloses a beneficiary was designated to receive the proceeds.

The only mutuality required as to the person is that the insured should have such person in mind, and that the insurer should concur in the person designated by him. An insurance company need not know the beneficiary at all; his purpose is to identify in the policy the person known and designated by the insured.

The case does not involve the making of a new contract for the parties, nor the making of one which they never consummated. It resolves itself into the simple question of mistake in the name of the beneficiary designated. The person's name is for identification,...