Opinion
No. 36518.
October 6, 1947. Suggestion of Error Overruled November 24, 1947.
INSURANCE.
Under life policy taken out by wife naming husband sole beneficiary under conditions of policy which made beneficiary's right to receive proceeds conditioned upon his being alive when claim therefor had matured as death claim, deceased wife's estate and not deceased husband's estate was entitled to proceeds of policy, where husband and wife were killed in same accident and husband survived wife by only one-half hour, since claim did not mature as a death claim in manner provided for in policy, until after husband's death.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Adams county. HON. R.W. CUTRER, Chancellor.
Engle, Laub, Adams Forman, of Natchez, for appellant.
Under the plain and unambiguous terms of the policy itself the appellant was entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy.
The court should have limited its finding to the issue as to whether the administrator of the estate of Laura J.M. White, deceased, was entitled to the proceeds of the policy, or whether the administratrix of the estate of Thomas W. White, deceased, was entitled to the proceeds of the policy, and the issue as to the ultimate parties to receive these proceeds as the heirs at law of Laura J.M. White, deceased, was not properly before the court and should not have influenced the rendition of the decree.
Pretermitting the question of the examination of the ultimate disposal of the funds by the chancery court of Adams County, under the terms of the contract set forth in the insurance policy, and the special circumstances herein involved, the ultimate parties entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy are the blood relations and next of kin of Laura J.M. White, deceased, exclusive of the heirs at law of her husband, Thomas W. White, deceased.
Brown Gwin, of Natchez, for appellee.
Appellee's decendant, as beneficiary of the insurance policy, acquired a vested interest therein upon the death of the insured.
Williams v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 160 Miss. 408, 133 So. 649, 651.
The provision in the policy requiring proof of loss satisfactory to the company to be submitted at its home office and working a forfeiture as to the beneficiary for failure to do so was entirely for the benefit of the company and was waived by the bill of interpleader and tender of the proceeds into court. The interest of the beneficiary thereby became indefeasibly vested.
Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. 708; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Bouldin, 100 Miss. 660, 56 So. 609; Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Delta Pine Land Co., 189 Miss. 496, 195 So. 667; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nessossis, 189 Miss. 414, 196 So. 766; Bank of Belzoni v. Hodges, 132 Miss. 238, 96 So. 97; Cotton v. Federal Casualty Co., 41 F. 506; 166 A.L.R. 18-19, note.
The appellee's decendent was the sole heir-at-law of the insured, his wife, and inherited upon her death, under the statute of descent and distribution, all of her interest in the policy and in any proceeds which reverted to her estate under the provisions of the policy, exempt and free from all debts.
McLemore v. Riley's Hospital, 197 Miss. 317, 20 So.2d 67; Colovos v. Gouvas, 269 Ky. 752, 108 S.W.2d 820, 113 A.L.R. 871; Code of 1942, Sec. 309.
The provisions of the policy making its proceeds payable to the executor or administrator of the insured, in the event of failures of beneficiaries, was not intended nor can such provisions be construed to change the laws of descent and distribution of the State of Mississippi because ample provision is made in the policy for designation and substitution of beneficiaries, and for the further reason that such effect could likewise have been obtained by last will and testament of the insured, either of which method would have made ample provision for blood relatives of the insured if such had been her intention.
This is a contest between the Administrator of the estate of Mrs. Laura J.M. White, deceased, and the Administratrix of the estate of her husband and sole heir-at-law, Thomas W. White, deceased, as to who is entitled to collect and receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy, which have been paid into court by the insurer, Lamar Life Insurance Company, and in which policy the said Mrs. Laura J.M. White was named as the insured, and the said Thomas W. White as beneficiary, under the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned. In the agreed statement of facts it is stipulated that the above is the sole issue for determination.
The insured and her husband were both killed in an automobile accident, and it is agreed that he survived her for a period of approximately one-half of an hour. The policy named the husband, Thomas W. White, as beneficiary with right of revocation, and "subject to the terms and conditions of the policy." No contingent beneficiary is named. It is further provided that the same shall mature as a death claim "upon the date of receipt at the home office of the company of written proof, satisfactory to the company, as to occurrence and the cause of the injured's death . . ."
The policy further provides that, "The death of any Beneficiary, Direct or Contingent, occurring prior to the maturity of this Policy as death claim, or subsequent to the maturity of this Policy as a death claim but before settlement has been completed under this Policy, shall terminate such deceased Direct or Contingent Beneficiary's right to receive, or share in, any settlement, or settlements, or any payment, or payments, due, or to become due, under this policy following its maturity as a death claim."
Also, "if any beneficiary, Direct or Contingent, shall die simultaneously with the Insured, or after the death of the Insured but before receipt, at the Home Office of the Company, of written proof, satisfactory to the Company, of the death of the Insured, any settlement or settlements, or any payment, or payments, due or to become due, under this Policy by reason of the Insured's death shall be made with the same Beneficiary, or Beneficiaries, Direct or Contingent, and in the same manner as provided in this Policy for settlement, or payment, had such Direct or Contingent Beneficiary have predeceased the Insured."
The insured and her husband left no children surviving them, and therefore the husband became both the sole heir-at-law and the surviving beneficiary. Ordinarily the administratrix of his estate, appellee herein, would have been entitled to collect and receive the proceeds of the insurance policy, with the right to administer upon the same. But it will be observed that the husband was named as sole beneficiary under the terms and conditions of the policy hereinbefore set forth. Since his right to receive the insurance was contingent upon his being alive when the claim therefor had matured as a death claim, and since it is shown that the policy did not mature as a death claim in the manner provided for until after his death, then, "Any settlement . . ., or any payment, . . ., due, or to become due, . . . shall be made with the same beneficiary" as would have been done "had such . . . beneficiary have predeceased the insured."
This being true, we are of the opinion that the trial court was in error in holding that the Administratrix of the estate of Thomas W. White was entitled to collect and receive the insurance under his bill of complaint and the agreed statement of facts; but that, on the other hand, the Administrator of the estate of Mrs. Laura J.M. White was entitled, under her answer, cross-bill and the agreed statement of facts, to collect and receive the same. The cause will, therefore, be reversed, the original bill dismissed, and a judgment rendered here in favor of the appellant, adjudicating his right to collect, receive and administer upon the proceeds of the insurance as an asset of the estate of the insured, and in the manner provided by law.
Reversed and judgment here for the appellant.