Salisbury v. Vick
| Decision Date | 15 February 1963 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 317 |
| Parties | Faye Reynolds SALISBURY, etc., Appellant, v. Gloria Dean Salisbury VICK et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
C. Kilmer Combs, Ashland, W. W. Burchett, Prestonsburg, for appellant.
Hollie Conley, Paul E. Hayes, Prestonsburg, Malcolm Y. Marshall, Richard F. Newell, Odgen, Brown, Robertson & Marshall, Louisville, for appellees.
CLAY, Commissioner.
This controversy involves the right to $20,000 proceeds payable under a life insurance policy. The former wife of the insured claims as the designated beneficiary, and his present widow asserts a claim on behalf of his estate. The trial court found for the former wife.
On September 9, 1957, Orris Salisbury procured a Family Protector Policy with the Commonwealth Life Insurance Company. The principal beneficiary was his 'Insured Wife', the appellee. The face amount was $10,000, with a double indemnity provision. The premiums were paid by the husband through July 8, 1958.
On July 5, 1958 appellee was granted an absolute divorce from the insured. He thereafter married appellant, and died as a result of an accident on December 10, 1960.
Under KRS 403.060(2) and 403.065, as construed in Warren v. Spurlock's Adm'r, 292 Ky. 668, 157 S.W.2d 858, and numerous other cases, every right appellee had in this insurance policy as a beneficiary was abrogated by the divorce.
Appellee contends there are several distinguishing features in this case which militate against the application of that rule. It is maintained appellant failed to show appellee's interest as beneficiary was obtained by reason of marriage, but KRS 403.065 creates that presumption and it was not rebutted.
Appellee also contends her right as beneficiary could not be abrogated because the policy did not permit a change of beneficiary, because she had an irrevocable interest, because she had an insurable interest after the divorce, and because the only thing that could have been restored to her husband upon divorce was the cash surrender value of the policy. These contentions do not reach the issue in the case. Assuming appellee had a vested interest in the policy, that is exactly what the law took from her and restored to the husband upon the entry of the judgment of divorce.
There is one other feature of the case which has not heretofore been considered in our decided cases. After the divorce appellee paid the premiums on the policy up until the death of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields
...of the husband to change her designation as such following the divorce.3 Bissell v. Gentry, 403 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.1966); Salisbury v. Bick, 368 S.W.2d 317 (Ky.1963); Warren v. Spurlock's Administrator, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d 858 (1943); Schauberger v. Morel's Administrator, 168 Ky. 368, 182 S.......
-
Bissell v. Gentry
...167 S.W.2d 858; Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Simmons' Adm'x, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 13; Henderson v. Bauer, Ky., 362 S.W.2d 730; Salisbury v. Vick, Ky., 368 S.W.2d 317. The other situation, in which the divorced spouse procured the policy and paid the premiums thereon, is set out in Ficke v. Pr......
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Fields, 1483.
...v. Morel's Adm'r, 168 Ky. 368, 182 S.W. 198 (1916); Warren v. Spurlock's Adm'r, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d 858 (1943); and Salisbury v. Vick, Ky., 368 S.W.2d 317 (1963). A divorced wife's rights as a beneficiary were recently considered by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Bissell v. Gentry, Ky......
-
Morgan v. United States
...the interest of a spouse named as a beneficiary in a policy of life insurance. Bissell v. Gentry, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 15; Salisbury v. Vick, Ky., 368 S.W.2d 317; Warren v. Spurlock, 292 Ky. 668, 167 S.W.2d It would therefore appear that the plaintiffs must prevail herein if the state law is con......