Thomas v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
| Decision Date | 02 May 1902 |
| Docket Number | 19,872 |
| Citation | 63 N.E. 795,158 Ind. 461 |
| Parties | Thomas v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Clay Circuit Court; S. M. McGregor, Judge.
Action by Josephine Thomas against the Prudential Insurance Company on a life insurance policy. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court, under § 1337u Burns 1901.
Affirmed.
G. S Payne and J. A. McNutt, for appellant.
G. A Knight, for appellee.
The complaint states, in substance, that on May 7, 1894, the appellee, by its policy of insurance, a copy of which was made an exhibit, insured the life of George Thomas, the husband of the appellant, in the sum of $ 190, payable at the death of the assured to his executor or administrator, unless settlement should be made under the provisions of article second of said policy; that afterwards, in 1899, the said policy was in danger of lapsing by reason of the failure of the assured to pay the premium then due; that thereupon a parol agreement was made between the said George Thomas, the appellant, and the said company that, if the appellant would pay the premiums then due, the said George Thomas would assign said policy to the appellant, and that the company would, upon the death of the assured, pay the amount named in the policy to appellant; that afterwards the said policy was assigned and delivered to the appellant, and that she paid the premiums then due, and all premiums thereafter becoming due, until the death of the said George Thomas, which occurred September 29, 1899; that the assured and the appellant performed all the conditions of the policy on their part to be performed, but that, upon the death of George Thomas, the company paid the amount named in the policy to Martha Thomas, the mother of the assured, claiming the right to do so under article second of said policy, and refused to pay the same to appellant. A second paragraph, containing the material averments of the first, states the additional fact that at the time the policy was assigned to appellant the assured designated her as the beneficiary, and that the company had notice of such assignment and designation. Article second of the policy was as follows: "The company may pay the sum of money insured hereby to any one related by blood, or connected by marriage, of the insured, or to any other person appearing to said company to be equitably entitled to the same by reason of having incurred expense in any way on behalf of the insured for his or her burial, or for any other purpose; and the production by the company of a receipt signed by any or either of such persons, or other sufficient proof of such payment to any or either of them, shall be conclusive evidence that such sum has been paid to the person or persons entitled thereto, and that all claims under this policy have been fully paid." Demurrers to these paragraphs for want of facts were sustained, and judgment was rendered against the appellant. These rulings, which are assigned for error, present the only question on this appeal.
The agreement among the parties, referred to in the complaint must be understood as nothing more than the designation of the appellant as the beneficiary under the policy. It did not in any other respect change the conditions of that instrument. After such...
To continue reading
Request your trial