Scherer v. Wahlstrom
| Decision Date | 07 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15946,15946 |
| Parties | William George SCHERER et ux., Appellants, v. Miriam Tatom WAHLSTROM et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Fannin & Fannin, Oliver W. Fannin, Jr., H. Joe Loe, Fort Worth, for appellants.
Crocker & McDonald, and Toy Crocker, Fort Worth, for appellees.
The Service Life Insurance Company filed an interpleader and named as defendants Mrs. Torsten H. Wahlstrom (nee Miriam Amelia Tatom) and William George Scherer and Elva Burnham Scherer.
Miriam Amelia Tatom was named as primary beneficiary, and William George Scherer as contingent beneficiary in Policy No. 66756, issued by Service Company on the life of Paul Burnham Scherer.
Summary judgment was granted in favor of Mrs. Wahlstrom.
Appellants Scherers appealed on three points: First, the court erred because Miriam Tatom Wahlstrom was made beneficiary by the insured in contemplation of marriage and her rights terminated when she breached the engagement and married another; second, to allow appellee to recover the proceeds of the policy would constitute unjust enrichment; and third, neither pleadings, affidavits nor stipulations established as a matter of law that appellee did not waive her rights to the policy proceeds.
The policy in question was issued November 1, 1953, payable upon the death of Paul Burnham Scherer 'to Mariam Amelia Tatom, Finacee, if living, otherwise to William George Scherer, Father.' The policy provided that
On February 22, 1956, Miss Tatom wrote Paul Scherer that she was going to marry another man. She married Wahlstrom on April 1, 1956. On June 14, 1956, insured notified Service Company in writing that he wanted to change the beneficiary of the policy to his father, William George Scherer. The Service Company, on June 19, mailed to insured a 'Change of Beneficiary Request' form. The form was accompanied by a letter from Service Company, requesting insured to complete and return the Request Form, together with the policy. He was advised that upon receipt of the Request Form and policy the endorsement of change of beneficiary would be made. Insured was stationed at Perrin Air Force Base, Texas, from February 14, 1955, to July 13, 1956, except for temporary duty elsewhere, including the period from June 14 to June 22, 1956, when he was on duty at Foster Air Base. Insured was killed in an accident on July 13, 1956.
At the time of his death insured had not executed the Change of Beneficiary Form, and had not sent the policy to the Company for endorsement as requested, and no change of beneficiary endorsement was made on said policy. The policy and the Change of Beneficiary Request Form were among the personal effects of insured at the time of his death.
By letter of September 15, 1956, appellant William George Scherer notified appellee of insured's death, and in the letter wrote, Appellee replied by a long letter dated October 30, 1956, which concluded, The record is silent as to whether such 'blanks' were sent to appellee.
The interpleader by Service Company alleges, however, that on January 10, 1957, it received a wire from appellee stating in part, "As beneficiary I wish to file claim for insurance under policy #66756," and requested claim form for that purpose. Service Company had previously received claim from appellants, hence, to avoid possible double liability, it filed the interpleader suit.
Under the provisions of Art. 3.49-1, Insurance Code, V.A.T.S., any beneficiary named in a policy, except those engaged in burying the dead, shall at all times thereafter have an insurable interest in the life of the insured.
An insurer may make reasonable regulations in a policy, or in the constitution and by-laws which become a part of the policy, defining the method by which a member may change the beneficiary, and when the beneficiary is a third party, such regulations become a part of the contract, and, generally speaking, the right to change can be exercised in no other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. Ashcraft
...even though their marriage has been dissolved. McCain v. Yost, 155 Tex. 174, 284 S.W.2d 898 (1955); Scherer v. Wahlstrom, 318 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1958, writ ref'd). Tex.Ins.Code Ann. Art. 3.49-1 A contention similar to the one before us was rejected in Partin v. deCordova, 4......
-
Service Life Ins. Co. of Fort Worth v. Davis
...Walker v. General American Life Ins. Co., l.c. 788(7); Richardson v. Kuhlmyer, Mo., 250 S.W.2d 355, 361(9); Scherer v. Wahlstrom, (Tex.Civ.App.) 318 S.W.2d 456, 459(7). As the life insurance policy reserved to the insured, Randall Ferguson, the right to change beneficiary, it did not confer......
-
Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v. Methven
...111 S.W.2d 1100; Kotch v. Kotch, 151 Tex. 471, 251 S.W.2d 520; Creighton v. Barnes, 152 Tex. 309, 257 S.W.2d 101, and Scherer v. Wahlstrom, Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 456, writ refused, all cited by In Garabrant v. Burns the insured wrote a letter in which he stated that he wished certain nam......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hunt's Estate
...in the cases referred to supra is entirely consistent with the substantial weight of authority elsewhere. See Scherer v. Wahlstrom, 318 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Civ.App.1958); Service Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 466 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1971). In both Scherer and Davis the relationship between the insured......