Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Decision Date | 30 June 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 34818.,34818. |
Parties | Christina H. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Cross-Claimant, v. Christina H. SMITH and Husted N. Smith, Cross-defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Jacobsen & Tobin, San Francisco, Cal., for Christina Smith.
Hadsell, Murman & Bishop, San Francisco, Cal., for Husted Smith.
This dispute is between the father and a former wife of a deceased Government employee, both of whom claim the proceeds of a Federal Group Life Insurance Policy that covered the decedent. The former wife, Christina Smith, originated the action by restraining the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from distributing the proceeds of the policy to the decedent's father, Husted Smith; the insurance company interpleaded Husted Smith, deposited the proceeds of the policy into the Registry of the Court, and was dismissed from the litigation.
The decedent, Harold Smith, was a Post Office employee. He originally designated Christina Smith the beneficiary of his Federal Group Life Insurance, and that was the only designation of a beneficiary he ever made. Harold Smith died from cancer, and the disease had drastically affected his mind for a period of time before his death. Twenty-one days before his death, and while Harold Smith was mentally incompetent, he was placed in a retired status by the Post Office Department. Section 11 of the Group Policy in question provides in part that any designation of beneficiary shall automatically cease to be effective on the date of retirement of the insured employee, and that section further provides:
Husted Smith's claim is based on the fact that after Harold Smith was retired by the Post Office, no new designation of beneficiary was filed by him (since he was incompetent), and therefore Husted claims that there was no designated beneficiary at the time of Harold's death, and that Husted is entitled to the proceeds of the policy as the surviving parent of the decedent, there being no widow or children of the decedent.
Harold Smith and Christina Smith were married in 1930 and were divorced in 1950. Harold remarried and was divorced a second time in 1953. After his second divorce, Harold and his first wife, Christina, became friendly again. During his last illness, which extended over a period of several months, Christina visited Harold frequently in the hospital. He made her the beneficiary of his Government insurance and the primary beneficiary under his will, as well as the executrix of his estate. It is abundantly clear, and this Court finds as a matter of fact, that Harold intended Christina to be the beneficiary of his Government insurance.
The statutes creating Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance, 5 U.S. C.A. § 2091 et seq., have not yet been construed by any court; but guidance may be found in general principles of insurance law, and in cases involving National Service Life Insurance. With regard to the latter, it is noted that many courts have passed upon situations in which an insured under a National Service Life Insurance Policy attempted to change the designation of beneficiary under his policy, but failed to comply with the technical requirements set forth in the policy as the means to accomplish such a change. The universal rule of those cases is that the policy provisions specifying the method of changing the designated beneficiary are for the benefit of the insurer and not the insured, and that the clear intention of the insured should be given effect even though the method specified in the policy is not followed. In Gerstenlauer v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 108 F.Supp. 654, 657, the court said:
The court further said 108 F.Supp. at page 658:
In McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761, 764, the court said:
"* * * the provisions for written notice of change of beneficiary in such insurance contracts are for the benefit of the insurer * * *."
And in Johnson v. White, 8 Cir., 39 F. 2d 793, 796, the court said:
That the provisions for automatic cancellation of a designation of beneficiary in the policy in question were inserted purely for administrative convenience is shown by the Civil Service Commission "Life Insurance Manual," issued December, 1954, which has the following to say about the provisions relied upon here by Husted Smith (Chapter I-3-20 and I-3-21):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stribling v. United States
...provisions of the Federal Employee's Group Life Insurance Act. A liberal construction was made in Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 142 F.Supp. 320 (N. D.Cal.1956), but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, while noting the Sears decision, refused to follow it and held that the prescri......
-
Sears v. Austin
...construing the provisions of 5 U.S.C.A. § 2093, a relatively new statute. A district court decision, Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., D.C.N.D.Cal. 1956, 142 F.Supp. 320, 322, held that the controlling factor is the intent of the insured, not compliance with formal "The universal ru......
-
Watenpaugh v. State Teachers' Retirement System
...of laws and the regulations, it must be held that it was 'duly filed' within the meaning of that term. Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 320; Schwerdtfeger v. American United Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 165 P.2d 928; Mildren v. Mildren, 9 Cir., 239 F.2d 515; Kit v. ......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Trullo
...a very liberal construction placing emphasis on developing what the decedent's intention had been (Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 320). Not only is intent not a fact to be decided but an offer to prove intent would be denied. The decedent and all concerned h......