Ryan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1906
• Citation: Ryan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 93 S.W. 347, 117 Mo. App. 688 (Mo. App. 1906)
• Parties: RYAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

93 S.W. 347

117 Mo. App. 688

RYAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 27, 1906.

1. INSURANCE—INSURABLE INTEREST—RELATIONSHIP.

The relationship of cousins does not create an insurable interest.

2. SAME—BURDEN OF PROOF.

Where a life insurance policy shows a relationship not creating an insurable interest, the burden is on the beneficiary to show that he had a pecuniary interest which gave him the right to insurance.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Walter B. Douglas, Judge.

Action by Willie Ryan against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

M. W. Oliver, for appellant. Wm. A. Kinnerk, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

Appellant is an incorporated company organized under the laws of the state of New York. Respondent is a resident of the city of St. Louis, and the beneficiary named in the policy which was issued September 22, 1902, on the life of John P. Ryan, a cousin of the respondent. The policy provided that in consideration of the premium of 15 cents a week, to be paid weekly, appellant, on the death of said John P. Ryan, would pay respondent the sum of $201. John P. Ryan died October 14, 1903, something more than a year after the date of the policy. The insurance policy had been written on his life by procurement of respondent, for the latter's benefit, and respondent had paid what premiums were paid.

One of the defenses was that the policy became forfeited prior to the death of the assured for nonpayment of premiums. This proposition is contested by respondent, but we find it unnecessary to go into it, because we think the judgment must be reversed for another reason. Suffice to say, regarding the payment of premiums, that respondent paid them promptly for several months, and then there was a lapse in the payments, which appellant asserts was due to respondent's fault, and respondent to the fact that appellant's agent ceased to call on him for premiums as by custom should have been done. At the time of the death of the insured there was an arrearage of premiums amounting to $1.65. The day after the death of Ryan, respondent called at appellant's office in St. Louis and asked the amount of premiums in arrears. He was informed, and on the afternoon of the same day left the amount at the residence of appellant's agent with the agent's wife. On discovering that the insured had died the day before this occurred, appellant offered to return the premiums to respondent, but...