Tomalewski v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Civ. A. No. 72-582.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-582. |
| Parties | Viola O. TOMALEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Elizabeth G. Tomalewski, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Paul Tomalewski, Deceased, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Raymond L. Brennan, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Viola O. Tomalewski.
Stanley A. Winikoff, Pittsburgh, Pa., for State Farm Ins.
Samuel Goldstein, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Elizabeth G. Tomalewski.
The interesting contretemps presented by this case arose because the insurance agent who filled out the application got a sheet of carbon paper reversed. One Nick A. Valicenti, the agent, was making three copies of the application. The original goes to the Company, the second to the agent, and the third is attached to and forms part of the policy.
The insured affixed his signature on the first page, before the papers were reversed to fill in some blanks on the second page regarding applicant's military service. He had skipped over the spaces for designation of beneficiary on the first page before he signed, to think over the matter who should be designated. Having made up his mind, he instructed the agent who then filled those vacant spaces. That is when the carbon paper was reversed. Accordingly, the original application shows as primary beneficiary Viola O. Tomalewski, applicant's mother; and as successor beneficiary, Thaddeus J. Tomalewski, his father. The second or agent's copy is identical.1 But the third or applicant's copy is blank with respect to designation of beneficiary. What should have gone on the third copy appears on the verso of the agent's copy.
On these facts several questions of law arise, since less than two months after issuance of the policy Paul Tomalewski, the insured, was married to Elizabeth Lauris, and then on December 8, 1971, he died. Both the insured's mother and his widow made claims to the proceeds of the policy, which was in the amount of $15,000. The Company filed an interpleader when sued by the mother and paid the money into court pursuant to an order of October 18, 1972. Both sides have filed motion for judgment on the pleadings, which include the deposition of the agent.
Since the execution and signature of the application constituted a single transaction, completed uno ictu at the same time and place, it would be exalting form over substance to say that in the eye of the law the application consisted only of the first page with the designation of beneficiary left blank, on the ground that the matters added after the signing by the applicant must be treated as pro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tomalewski v. State Farm Life Insurance Company
...summary judgment in favor of Viola Tomalewski finding as a matter of law that she was entitled to the proceeds of the policy. See 354 F. Supp. 1359. The use and purpose of a motion for summary judgment is well stated in Mintz v. Mathers Fund, Inc., 463 F.2d 495, 498 (7 Cir. 1972), as follow......