Ryan v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Full title: Ryan v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 15, 1937

193 A. 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)

193 A. 61

Opinion

October 21, 1936.

July 15, 1937.

Insurance — Industrial life insurance — Beneficiary named — Person equitably entitled — Receipt as satisfaction of policy.

1. Beard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 326 Pa. 430, followed.

2. The "facility of payment" clause, in the form used in the above case, applies to policies made payable to a named beneficiary and authorizes the company to select the person equitably entitled to receive the insurance money, and the receipt of such person is a satisfaction of the policy.

Appeal, No. 262, Oct. T., 1936, from judgment of M.C. Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1934, No. 74, in case of Rose Ryan v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES and RHODES, JJ. Judgment reversed and entered for defendant.

Assumpsit on policy of industrial life insurance. Before GLASS, J., without a jury.

Finding for defendant. Judgment entered for plaintiff by court in banc, GLASS, J., dissenting. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was entry of judgment for plaintiff n.o.v.

Charles M. Willits, with him Brown Williams, for appellant.

Frank Bechtel, Jr., with him Albert T. Hanby, for appellee.

Argued October 21, 1936.

PER CURIAM, July 15, 1937:

This case is ruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Beard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 326 Pa. 430, 192 A. 411, which reversed the judgment of this court, reported in 122 Pa. Super. 174, 186 A. 239, and held that the `facility of payment' clause, in the form used in that case, applies to policies made payable to a named beneficiary and authorizes the company to select the person equitably entitled to receive the insurance money, and that the receipt of such person is a satisfaction of the policy.

The language used in the `facility of payment' clause in the policy in the present case is identical with that in the Beard policy, and requires the same action.

Pursuant to the authority of the Beard case, supra, the judgment of the court below is reversed and is here entered for the defendant.