Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Reid
| Decision Date | 16 December 1930 |
| Citation | 152 A. 454 |
| Parties | PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. REID et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under a life policy of insurance reserving the right of the insured to change the beneficiary, the change to take effect only when indorsed by the insurer on the policy, the insurer has no discretion to refuse to indorse the change when the insured has sent the policy to the insurer with a proper request for the change. Such indorsement is regarded as a mere ministerial act.
Syllabus by the Court.
Under a life policy reserving to the insured the right to change the beneficiary, the change to take effect only when indorsed by the insurer on the policy, when the insured has sent the policy to the insurer with a proper request for the change of beneficiaries, the indorsement on the policy by the insurer will be deemed to have been made under the equitable principle considering as done that which should have been done.
Syllabus by the Court.
The appointment of a partnership as beneficiary under a life insurance policy without designation of the names of the partners comprising the partnership is a sufficiently definite appointment to entitle the partnership to receive the fund at the death of the insured.
Suit by the Prudential Insurance Company of America against Edgar Reid and others for determination of conflicting claims to proceeds of life insurance policy.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Avis & Avis, of Woodbury, for defendants Estelle E. Reid and Prank Halpen, William Halpen, and John H. McCracken, trading as Halpen, Green & Co.
H. Norrls Mangan, of Salem, for defendant Anna Louise Melton.
LEAMING, Vice Chancellor.
The only question for solution herein is whether a certain written request made by the insured to the insurer for a change of beneficiaries in a policy of life insurance is effective as against the beneficiaries theretofore designated.
The insurer has paid the money into court, and has been discharged by a decree of interpleader; the respective claimants to the fund have been heard at final hearing on their statements of claims.
The policy of insurance by its terms reserves to the insured the right to change the beneficiaries. Touching the manner in which the insured may make a change of beneficiaries, the policy provides:
"Change of Beneficiaries: If the right to Change the Beneficiary has been reserved the Insured may at any time while this Policy is in force, by written notice to the Company at its Home Office, change the Beneficiary or Beneficiaries under this Policy, such change to be subject to the rights of any previous assignee and to become effective only when a provision to that effect is endorsed on or attached to the Policy by the Company, whereupon all rights of the former Beneficiary or Beneficiaries shall cease."
A written demand for a change of beneficiaries was made upon the insurer by the insured, accompanied by the policy of insurance. The change demanded was:
"Make policy payable, in case of the death of the insured, to his wife, Estella E. Reid and Halpen Green & Co. share and share alike or the survivor if there be any; otherwise to the executors administrators or assigns of the insured."
Instead of indorsing this change of beneficiaries on the policy, the insurer, on August 11, 1928, wrote to its local agent as follows:
September 4, 1928, the local agent wrote to the insurer at its home office as follows:
"In acknowledging your letter of August 21st would say that Halpen & Green Company is a firm."
Thereafter the insurer prepared a new form of request for change of beneficiaries for the insured to execute and forwarded it to the local agent, in which form Halpen, Green & Co. are referred to as partners, with a blank space left for the names of the members of the firm to be supplied; but before it was mailed the insured had died.
At this time the members of the partnership of Halpen, Green & Co. claim one-half of the fund and the widow of deceased the other one-half; the former beneficiaries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Moore, 8578.
...N.E. 520; Quist v. West. & So. Co., 219 Mich. 406, 189 N.W. 49; Goodrich v. Eq. Life, 111 Neb. 616, 197 N.W. 380; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Reid, 107 N.J.Eq. 338, 152 A. 454; Re Lynch's Estate, 135 Misc. 436, 237 N.Y.S. 663; Teague v. Pilot Ins. Co., 200 N.C. 450, 157 S.E. 421; Atkinson v. Met......
-
Papp v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...should not take effect until indorsed by the insurance company. It was so held by Vice Chancellor Learning in Pnidential Insurance Co. v. Reid, 107 N. J. Eq. 338, 152 A. 454, who, treating the indorsement as a mere ministerial act, enforced the change, in that case complete but for the indo......
-
Seavey v. Long
...See Vasconi v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 124 N.J. 338, 346-47, 590 A.2d 1161 (1991); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Reid, 107 N.J.Eq. 338, 341-42, 152 A. 454 (Ch.1930). But that is not the case here. The ruling of the trial judge in favor of plaintiff's claims and the balancing ......
-
Bell v. Criviansky
... ... True, certain authorities recognize this distinction. Ringler ... v. Ringler, supra; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Reid, 107 ... N. J. Eq. 338, 152 A. 454. Other authorities make no ... distinction ... ...