Western Life Insurance Company v. Bower
Citation | 153 F. Supp. 25 |
Decision Date | 15 July 1957 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1828. |
Parties | WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. Virginia K. BOWER and Mable Claire Bower, also known as and called Mabel N. Bower, Defendants. Virginia K. BOWER, Plaintiff in Interpleader, v. Mable Claire BOWER, also known as and called Mabel N. Bower, Defendant in Interpleader. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
T. P. Patterson, Helena, Mont., for plaintiff.
H. Cleveland Hall and Edward C. Alexander, Great Falls, Mont., for plaintiff in interpleader.
William A. Brown, Helena, Mont., for defendant in interpleader.
This cause is submitted by the plaintiff in interpleader (hereafter referred to as plaintiff) and the defendant in interpleader (hereafter referred to as defendant) upon an agreed statement of facts. The controversy involves the proceeds of an insurance policy issued upon the life of Joseph Edward Bower by Western Life Insurance Company, which has deposited in the registry of the court the proceeds of the policy amounting to $10,093.17.
The policy was a single premium endowment policy, issued September 27, 1938, payable to the insured, if living, on September 27, 1970 and, in the event of his death prior thereto, to defendant, who was then the wife of the insured and the beneficiary named in the policy.
The policy contained the following provisions:
On August 15, 1946, Joseph Edward Bower, the insured, and the defendant, entered into a property settlement agreement which provided in part as follows:
There follows provisions for the disposition of all of the property owned by the parties to the agreement, including as paragraph VII, the following:
"That it is understood and agreed that the party of the second part has heretofore obtained a life or endowment insurance policy from the Western Life Insurance Company for $10,000.00, in which the party of the second part named the first party beneficiary and that if and when any payments are made thereon by said insurance company, during both of the lives of the parties hereto, that the same shall be divided equally between the parties hereto; that in the event that the second party shall die first, all the benefits and payments under said policy shall inure to and belong to the party of the first part and be paid to her; in the event the party of the first part should die first, all such benefits and payments shall inure to and be payable to the party of the second part."
Paragraph VIII reads as follows:
"That the transfers of all said property to the party entitled thereto, as herein provided, shall be consummated immediately after either one of the parties hereto has obtained a Decree of Divorce from the other party hereto."
At the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, Joseph Edward Bower and the defendant entered into a supplemental agreement, as follows:
Pursuant to these agreements, the defendant on September 26, 1946, instituted an action for divorce against Joseph Edward Bower. Default decree was entered October 24, 1946, in favor of the defendant herein.
On August 15, 1946, Joseph Edward Bower was in the exclusive possession of the policy of insurance and remained in possession thereof until his death on September 29, 1955. Subsequent to October 24, 1946, Joseph Edward Bower married the plaintiff herein, and on December 7, 1949, in the exercise of his reserved right to change the beneficiary named in the insurance policy, changed the beneficiary from the defendant herein to the plaintiff herein. Plaintiff at all times since then has been, and now is, the named beneficiary. Plaintiff claims the proceeds of the insurance policy as the beneficiary named in the policy at the time of the insured's death. Defendant claims the proceeds under the agreements between insured and defendant, dated August 15, 1946.
The plaintiff herein, Virginia Bower, as the named beneficiary at the time of the insured's death, is entitled to the proceeds of the policy unless the defendant herein, Mabel Claire Bower, had a vested interest in the policy which could not be divested by a change of beneficiary under the reserved power. It is the position of the defendant that she acquired a vested interest in the policy under the property settlement agreement. Plaintiff contends that the property settlement agreement is against public policy and accordingly void and unenforceable.
It is the general rule that where a right to change the beneficiary has been reserved by the insured, the beneficiary named in the policy has a mere expectancy and no vested right or interest therein during the life of the insured. Morgan v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 129; Doering v. Buechler, 8 Cir., 1945, 146 F.2d 784; 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1173 b (2), p. 62. This rule is subject, however, to well recognized exceptions, and a reserved right to change the beneficiary named in the policy may not be exercised where insured has divested himself of the right by agreement. This exception is stated by Corpus Juris Secundum as follows: . 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1175 c (1) p. 71. See also 2 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Sec. 922; 175 A.L.R. 1220.
Property settlements may create a vested equitable interest. This rule is stated in Appleman's Treatise on Insurance Law, Vol. 2, Sec. 922, p. 338, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
...beneficiary naming his second wife. That court noted that under Texas law it would have reached the same result.); Western Life Insurance Co. v. Bower, 153 F.Supp. 25 (1957)(holding that under Montana law property settlement agreement provision wherein husband divested himself of the right ......
-
Wood v. Martin
...1460-61 (D.N.J. 1984) ; Perkins v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 455 F. Supp. 499, 501 (S.D. W. Va. 1978) ; Western Life Ins. v. Bower , 153 F. Supp. 25, 28-29 (D. Mont. 1957) ; Dubois v. Smith , 135 N.H. 50, 599 A.2d 493, 497 (1991) ; Herrington v. Boatright , 633 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Tenn. Ct.......
-
Yates v. Yates, 17752.
...v. John Hancock Mut. Life, D.C., 108 F.Supp. 902; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Rader, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 44; Western Life Ins. Co. v. Bower, D.C., 153 F.Supp. 25. Cf. Kroll v. Kroll, Fla.App., 105 So.2d 3 "No person, in any court, or before any officer acting judicially, shall be exclude......
-
Wiener v. Folsom
... ... Office of the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance of the Social Security Administration. She informed the ... ...