Williams v. People's Life & Accident Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1931
• Docket Number: No. 21394.,21394.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE'S LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.

35 S.W.2d 922

WILLIAMS v. PEOPLE'S LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.

No. 21394.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 3, 1931.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1931.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Harry E. Sprague, Judge.

Action by Annabelle Williams against the People's Life & Accident Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Martin Farrow, of St. Louis, for appellant.

J. P. Griffin, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, J.

This is an action instituted before a justice of the peace, in the city of St. Louis, to recover on an industrial insurance policy for $198. Plaintiff recovered in the justice court, as well as in the circuit court, and defendant has appealed. There was a judgment for $342, which included interest, penalty, and attorney's fees.

The policy was issued on the life of William I. Williams on the 22d day of August, 1927. Insured died on the 21st day of March, 1928. Plaintiff was the wife of one of insured's brothers, John Williams. The insured was 20 years old at the time the policy was taken out, and was 21 years old when he died.

The evidence discloses that he was feebleminded, and never worked except around the house, and never attended school very much. Plaintiff, her husband, and his other brothers and sisters took care of him after his father's death. Plaintiff's evidence discloses that defendant's agent, who visited her home frequently, wrote the policy of insurance; that he had seen this boy around the place at different times. The evidence also discloses that plaintiff signed the application for the insured, and the policy was issued while he was away from home, naming plaintiff, a sister-in-law, as the beneficiary. There is some evidence in the record tending to show that defendant's agent knew that the insured was not present at the time the application was signed, and, of course, knew that the plaintiff, who was named as beneficiary, was the wife of one of insured's brothers. The evidence also discloses that plaintiff's husband either paid the premiums or furnished her the money with which to pay them, and insured had nothing to do with paying the premiums. The policy also contained the usual facility of payment clause. Defendant paid into court the amount of premiums which had been paid on the policy.

It is unnecessary to discuss the further provisions of the policy, or to detail the evidence offered either by plaintiff or defendant further than what we have already stated. In our opinion, plaintiff cannot recover, as it seems to be thoroughly settled by the laws of this state that, under such a state of facts as we have detailed, plaintiff had no insurable interest in the life of the insured, and the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant as requested.

In Reynolds v. Prudential Insurance Co., 88 Mo. App. 679, the court held that adult brothers, neither dependent upon the other, had not from the mere relationship an insurable interest in the life of each other.

In Ryan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 117 Mo. App. 688, 93 S. W. 347, the court held that the beneficiary in a life insurance policy, procured by himself, upon the life of his cousin, could not recover on the death of the insured, because the beneficiary had no insurable...