Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Mantz

• Decision Date: 14 January 1941
• Docket Number: 129/401.
• Citation: 128 N.J.Eq. 480,17 A.2d 279
• Parties: PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. MANTZ et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

17 A.2d 279

128 N.J.Eq. 480

PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA

v. MANTZ et al.

129/401.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 14, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The beneficiary mentioned in the policies of insurance has the right and the privilege of insisting upon a compliance with the terms of the policies to effect a change.

Bill of interpleader by the Prudential Insurance Company of America against Ina F. Mantz, also known as Ina F. Hurley, and Florence E. Schroder, to determine which of defendants was entitled to receive proceeds of two insurance policies issued by complainant upon the life of Charles H. Schroder, now deceased.

Judgment for Ina F. Mantz, also known as Ina F. Hurley.

Stein, Stein & Stein, of Elizabeth, for defendant Mantz.

Harvey Rothberg and Isadore I. Schwartz, both of Plainfield, for defendant Schroder.

EGAN, Vice Chancellor.

The complainant filed a bill of interpleader against the defendants who claim to be entitled to the proceeds of two insurance policies issued by the complainant on the life of Charles H. Schroder, now deceased. One policy was issued on March 28, 1931, for the sum of $1,000 (Exhibit D-2); the other was issued on September 7, 1936, for $500 (Exhibit D-1). When the policies were issued, the beneficiary named in them was the "executors, administrators or assigns of the insured". The insured, on February 10, 1932, changed the beneficiary in the $1,000 policy (Exhibit D-2) to "Ina F. Mantz, Stepdaughter of the Insured"; and on November 27, 1936, he changed the beneficiary in the $500 policy to "Ina F. Hurley, stepdaughter of the Insured". Ina F. Mantz and Ina F. Hurley are one and the same person. The change in the name of Mantz to Hurley resulted from the beneficiary's marriage to James Hurley.

On October 21, 1939, the decedent Schroder married Florence E. Schroder, the defendant herein. He died on April 12, 1940.

The $1,000 policy contains the following clauses:

"Change of Beneficiary.—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."

"Assignments.—Any assignment of this Policy must be in writing, and the Company shall not be deemed to have knowledge of such assignment unless the original or a duplicate thereof is filed at the Home Office of the Company. The Company will not assume any responsibility for the validity of an assignment."

The policy for $500 (Exhibit D-1) contains substantially the same provisions as the last quoted clauses. The insured reserved the right to change the beneficiary in both policies.

The defendant, Florence E. Schroder, in effect, testified that in October, 1939, she heard her husband, the decedent, telephone to the defendant, Ina F. Hurley, and make an appointment for her to meet him at the Scotch Plains bank for the purpose of effecting a change of beneficiary in the policies. She testified that she and her husband and an agent of the complainant company waited at the bank on the day appointed for the meeting, but that Ina did not appear. The decedent, she said, before their marriage, in the latter part of September, 1939, in her presence, in her mother's home, stated to Walter Bowden, an insurance premium collector for the complainant company, that he could not find his policies, and believed that the complainant had them in its possession; that the beneficiary named in the policies was his "estate" and that he wanted to change the beneficiary named in them. Bowden, the agent to whom it is alleged the decedent spoke, had been collecting premiums for the complainant from the family of the defendant, Florence E. Schroder. Mrs. Schroder, further testified, in effect, that on or about January 18, 1940, in their home, the decedent, her husband, conversed with Nathan Hollander, another premium collecting agent of the complainant company, about changing the beneficiary in his policies, and Hollander volunteered to get in touch with Mrs. Hurley about it; that afterward, in the month of February, Hollander while in the home of decedent's wife collecting insurance premiums was asked by the decedent if he had "any luck in getting in touch with Mrs. Hurley"; and that Hollander said "no"; that about two weeks later, Hollander with Samuel Smelson, an assistant superintendent for complainant, while collecting premiums at the home of the witness' mother, were told by the decedent that he was endeavoring to have Mrs. Hurley fill out a "form" which would effect a change of beneficiary in his policies. Smelson then said to the decedent "give me the form and Mr. Hollander and I will try to get Mrs. Hurley to sign it."

Hollander, in substance, testified that Schroder believed that the original policies were "lost"; that he told Schroder that he "would look into it"; that the company's agent, Walter Bowden "handed me a certificate of lost policy" which required the signature of the insured; that he left that form with Mrs. Schroder to have it signed; that sometime in February, 1940, he and Samuel Smelson, the complainant company's assistant superintendent, were told by decedent Schroder that he did not seem able to contact Mrs. Hurley. Whereupon Smelson said "We would try to contact her"; that he and Smelson called several times at Mrs. Hurley's home for the purpose of obtaining the policies, but were unsuccessful in finding her. Hollander said that he reported his efforts to find Mrs. Hurley to Schroder about the first week of March, 1940. He further testified that he telephoned to Mrs. Hurley's home and a man "who said that he was Mrs. Hurley's husband" answered the call; that he communicated to him the insured's message about changing the beneficiary in the policies; that the person to whom he spoke said Mrs. Hurley "could not be seen" as she was then ill in the Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield, New Jersey, and "he did not want her disturbed".

Smelson testified to unsuccessful efforts that he and Hollander had made to get in touch with Mrs. Hurley at her home. Henry S. Gildersleeve, the widow's brother-in-law, and her sister, Edna B. Gildersleeve, testified that they heard the decedent Schroder tell Smelson and Hollander that he wanted to make his wife beneficiary in his policies.

The defendant, Ina F. Hurley, in effect, testified that the decedent Schroder was her step-father; that after her mother's death, he resided in her home up to October, 1939, when he married the defendant, Florence E. Schroder; that the decedent had always been on friendly terms with her and that they were friends up to the time of his...