Warren v. Pilgrim Health & Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | 16401. |
| Citation | 60 S.E.2d 891,217 S.C. 453 |
| Parties | WARREN v. PILGRIM HEALTH & LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Mays, Featherstone & Bradford, Greenwood, for appellant.
Nicholson & Nicholson, Greenwood, for respondent.
Appellant issued its insurance policy, dated February 4, 1946, upon the life of John Belcher, an illiterate colored man living near the City of Greenwood, South Carolina. The application was in the handwriting of appellant's colored agent, R. H. Burton and signed by the applicant making his mark. The insured John Belcher, died February 15, 1948, two years and eleven days after the issuance of the policy. The application recited among other things that John Belcher was forty-one years of age and that the beneficiary, Ben Warren, another negro who could neither read nor write, was the nephew of the insured when in fact he was not related in any respect to the insured although he called him Uncle John. The coroner's physician reported that the age of the deceased was seventy-nine years and gave as cause of death 'cardio-renal' and the remote cause 'senility.'
The matter came on for trial before Honorable A. L. Gaston and a jury at the April term of Common Pleas Court for Greenwood County, 1949 resulting in a verdict of $220.00 for the respondent, the face amount of the policy. The appellant moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, or in the alternative for a new trial, which was refused, and now comes to this Court contending, first, that the contract of insurance was void as a gambling contract; second, that the insured, John Belcher was mentally incompetent and therefore unable to understand an application for insurance and to authorize their agent, Burton, to sign his name thereto; third, that the evidence so clearly preponderates against the verdict that it must be assumed that the jury was influenced by outside considerations and that the judge abused his discretion when he refused to set aside the verdict.
In support of its position relative to the first question, appellant cites the cases of Crosswell v. Conn. Indemnity Association, 51 S.C. 103, 28 S.E. 200, 205, and Rogers v. Atlantic Life Insurance Co., 135 S.C. 89, 133 S.E. 215, 45 A.L.R. 1172. These authorities are to the effect that one cannot obtain valid insurance upon the life of another in whom he has no insurable interest; but it is generally held that one may procure insurance on his own life and make it payable to whomever he wishes, if in good faith and not to cover a wagering policy, this being founded upon the principle that everyone has an insurable interest in his own life. 29 Am.Jur. 312, Insurance, Section 355; 44 C.J.S., Insurance, § 202, p. 899.
The Crosswell case states in part:
Appellant's agent having died before the trial, only the beneficiary could testify as to what actually transpired, and he stated that at that time he had an insurance policy with the same company but had let it lapse after the controversy in question arose and that the company's agent, Burton collected the premiums thereon each week; that on the date in question Burton came by his home for this purpose and asked that he accompany him on his rounds, which he did, remaining in the car; that he did not hear the conversation between the agent, Burton, and the insured, John Belcher, as that...
To continue reading
Request your trial