Pollock v. Household Of Ruth

• Decision Date: 04 March 1909
• Citation: 63 S.E. 940,150 N.C. 211
• Parties: POLLOCK et al. v. HOUSEHOLD OF RUTH et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

63 S.E. 940

150 N.C. 211

POLLOCK et al.

v.HOUSEHOLD OF RUTH et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 1909.

1. Insurance (§ 770^*)—Mutual Benefit Insurance—Beneficiaries.

A member of a mutual benefit society may select any one as his beneficiary, unless the right is restricted by the rules of the society or by statute, which is not done by Revisal 1905, § 4794, declaring what laws are applicable to fraternal orders.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Dec. Dig. § 770.*]

2. Insurance (§ 114*)—Life Insurance—Insurable Interest.

The rule that to justify the taking out of a life policy there must exist an insurable interest does not apply where insured takes out a policy on his own life, and arranges for the payment of the premium himself, unless such an arrangement is a mere cloak for a wagering transaction.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 138; Dec. Dig. §. 114.*]

3. Insurance (§ 780*)—Mutual Benefit Insurance—Change of Beneficiary.

In the absence of restrictions in the statutes or charter or rules of a mutual benefit society, a member may change the beneficiary at his election, and the last holder is entitled to the benefit, though required formalities must, as a general rule, be observed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1946; Dec. Dig. § 780.*]

4. Insurance (§ 783*)—Mutual Benefit Insurance—Change of Beneficiary.

A beneficiary in a mutual benefit certificate has no vested interest therein; and, in the absence of a binding contract with the member that he shall receive the benefits, equity will not interfere where the member changes the beneficiary.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1949; Dec. Dig. § 783.*]

5. Insurance (§ 780*)—Mutual Benefit Insurance—Change of Beneficiary.

The mere payment by the beneficiary in a mutual benefit certificate of the premiums and dues called for does not, in the absence of a binding contract that the beneficiary shall receive the benefit, prevent the member from changing the beneficiary.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1946; Dec. Dig. § 780.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; O. H. Allen, Judge.

Action by Charles Pollock and another against the Household of Ruth and another. From a judgment for defendant Kate Hardy, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

From the facts formally agreed upon, as stated, it appeared that Barbara Wooten had died, at the time of her death a mem ber, in good standing, in defendant company, and holding a policy of insurance or certificate of said company, and in which the plaintiffs, the brother and sister of deceased, had been originally designated as beneficiaries. It further appeared: "Second. That about a week prior to her death the insured caused the name of Katie Hardy to be substituted in the same policy as beneficiary in the place of Charles and Edith Pollock, which was done by the district worthy recorder, Addie L, Whittiker, of the endowment department of the defendant company, at the request of the insured. Third. That Katie Hardy is no relation to the insured. Fourth. That a part of the premiums were paid by Charles and Edith Pollock, and a part by the deceased, and some part paid by the local lodge out of money allowed to the deceased for sick benefits and due to her, and that the policy was in force, and the premium paid, up to the death of the insured, who died on the 29th day of December, 1907. Fifth. That there is nothing contained in the charter or by-laws of the said insurance company giving the insured the right to change the beneficiaries, nor Is there any power of revocation in the said policy above named, and that the said change and substitutions were made without the knowledge or consent of the said Charles and Edith Pollock, and that there was no contract between the said Barbara Wooten and Charles Pollock and Edith Pollock, either written or verbal, that the beneficiaries should or should not be changed. Sixth. That the said insurance company is a mutual benefit company. Seventh. That the said insurance company stands ready and willing to pay the amount of the policy to whoever is adjudged to be the rightful claimant, and that the said company claims no interest in the controversy." Upon the facts the court adjudged that the fund belonged to the defendant Kate Hardy, the beneficiary last designated, and that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit. Thereupon plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

W. W. Clark and R. W. Williamson, for appellants.

HOKE, J. (after stating the facts as above). It is very generally recognized that in these mutual benefit societies and fraternal orders, carrying an insurance feature as an incident of membership, a member holding a policy of insurance may designate any one whom he may select as beneficiary, unless this right of selection is confined or restricted by some provision of law, or some rule of the company affecting the contract. 1 Bacon on Benefit Societies and Life Insurance (3d Ed.) § 246. In the present case neither the policy nor the rules of the order seem to contain any stipulation affecting the matter, and we find no statutory provision of thekind suggested, for it will not be contended that the mere reference to fraternal societies contained in Revisal 1905, § 4794, amounts to such a restriction. 1 Cooley's Briefs on the Law of Insurance, p. 797. This position in no way conflicts with the principle which obtains with us that to justify the taking out of a life insurance policy there must exist an insurable interest. Such a principle is recognized in cases where one takes out a policy on the life of another, but does not apply when the.insured takes out a policy on his own life, and pays, or arranges for the payment of, the premium himself and...