Thomas v. Nat'l Benefit Ass'n

• Decision Date: 03 March 1913
• Citation: 86 A. 375,84 N.J.L. 281
• Parties: THOMAS v. NATIONAL BENEFIT ASS'N.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

86 A. 375

84 N.J.L. 281

THOMAS

v. NATIONAL BENEFIT ASS'N.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 3, 1913.

Error to Supreme Court,

Action by Tera Thomas against the National Benefit Association. There was a judgment of the Supreme Court (81 N. J. Law, 349, 79 Atl. 1042) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, and. defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Frank E. Bradner, of Newark, and George A. Douglas, for plaintiff in error.

Richard Stockton, of Newark, for defendant in error.

GUMMERE, C. J. This action was brought in the Second district court of the city of Newark to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by the National Benefit Association upon the life of one Dora Cooper, and payable to Tera Thomas, the plaintiff. The trial of the cause resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, and on appeal to the Supreme Court that judgment was affirmed. The propriety of the affirmance is now challenged by the defendant.

The principal contention made by the plaintiff in error, both in the Supreme Court and here, was that the policy sued upon is void, for the reason that the beneficiary, Mrs. Thomas, had no insurable interest in the life of the deceased; the policy requiring that "the beneficiary must have something more than a pecuniary interest in the insured, as speculative policies are not issued by this association." The uncontro-verted proofs submitted at the trial showed that, when the decedent was about 17 years of age, Mrs. Thomas, who was not related to her in any way, took her from an orphanage asylum, gave her a home, and took care of and supported her until she was able to maintain herself, and that upon her death Mrs. Thomas took charge of the funeral and paid the expenses thereof out of her own pocket. It further appeared that, notwithstanding that Mrs. Thomas had never formally been appointed guardian of Miss Cooper, the latter looked upon her as such, even after she attained her majority. We think that these facts disclose an insurable interest under the terms of the policy. They show that the relation of the parties had been of such a character that each had reason to rely upon the other in time of need, and especially that Mrs. Thomas had a right to expect help and care during her declining years from Miss Cooper, if the latter was then in a position to render it. Although, as was said by Field, J., in Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775, 26 L. Ed. 924, it is not easy to define with precision what will constitute such an...