« AnteriorContinuar »
caused the names of the sons only to be inserted after the word "children." Held that, since neither the certificate nor the laws of the society provided for a change of beneficiaries, the daughter acquired a vested right as a beneficiary, which would descend to her heirs at her death.—Johnson v. Hall, 17 S. W. 874. 53 Ark. 810.
[b] (Cal. Sup. 1894) If sound equities exist in favor of the original beneficiary of an insurance certificate, the insured is estopped to substitute a second beneficiary, whose status is purely that of a volunteer.-Jory v. Supreme Council, 38 Pac. 524, 105 Cal. 20, 26 L. R. A. 733.
[c] (Colo. Sup. 1899) The fact that under the by-laws of an insurance association a beneficiary may be changed without his consent does not prevent the beneficiary from obtaining a vested property right in the certificate which will be beyond the power of assured to devest-Anderson v. Groesbeck, 55 Pac. 1086.
[d] (Ky. App. 1899) The beneficiary named in the policy has a vested interest, not only in current insurance, but in the extended insurance purchased by the net reserve, upon the failure to pay a premium when due.-Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 51 S. W. 20.
se] (N. J. Ch. 1899) Where the certificate of a beneficial insurance association invests the beneficiary with a vested interest, the insured member cannot defeat such interest by surrendering the old, and taking out a new, certificate. -Association v. Winterstein, 44 Atl. 199.
[f] (N. J. Ch. 1899) A certificate issued by a beneficial insurance association upon the life of a member, in favor of a third person, where neither the constitution or by-laws of the society nor the certificate confers upon the members a power to change the beneficiary, invests the beneficiary with a vested interest in the certificate.- Association v. Winterstein, 44 Atl. 199.
[g] (Pa. Orph. Ct. 1897) A member of a beneficial association may, for a valuable consideration, estop himself from changing his designation of beneficiary, although such change is authorized by a by-law.-In re Krause's Estate, 28 Pittsb. Leg. J. (N. S.) 29.
4. Payment of Dues by Beneficiary.
[a] (Cal. Sup. 1899) The beneficiary named in a certificate of a mutual benefit insurance association, where she became such pursuant to an agreement with the member that she would pay all future assessments, and take care of him, and that he would not change the beneficiary, cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiary.-Grimbley v. Harrold, 57 Pac. 558. 125 Cal. 24.
[b] (Conn. Sup. 1899) T. procured an insurance policy on his life, naming his wife and sons as beneficiaries. The dues were at first paid by the wife, and afterwards, at the father's request, by the sons, with the expectation of sharing the benefits. Pefore the father's death, the sons ceased paying the dues, and they were again paid by the wife; and the policy, at the father's instance, was changed so as to make her the sole beneficiary. Held, that the sons were not entitled to any share in the proceeds of the policy.-Association v. Tolles, 40 Atl. 448. 70 Conn. 537.
(c) (Conn. Sup. 1889) A beneficiary of an insurance policy has no vested interest in the policy prior to the insured's death, even though he pay the dues on the policy, with the expectation of sharing in the benefits.-Association v. Tolles, 40 Atl. 448, 70 Conn. 537.
[a] (Mo. Sup. 1891) The beneficiary of a certificate of membership in a beneyolent association has no vested right in the certificate before the death of the member on whose account it was issued; and the right of the member to change the beneficiary without the consent of the beneficiary is not affected by the fact that the beneficiary has paid the assessments, and has possession of the certificate.-Association v. Bunch, 19 S. W. 25, 109 Mo. 560.
[e] (N. Y. Sup. 1889) The original beneficiary is entitled to repayment, out of the fund realized on the certificate at the death of the insured, of assessments paid by her in ignorance of the fact that a new beneficiary had been designated.—Association v. Laudenbach, 5 N. Y. Supp. 901.
[f] (N. Y. Sup. 1893) Where a person became a member of a mutual benefit association under an agreement with the person designated in the certificate as beneficiary that the beroticiary should pay all the assessments, and they were so paid, the beneficiary acquired a rested interest in the certificate, and the member could not afterwards make another designation.—Maynard v. Vanderwerker, 24 N. Y. Supp. 932, 30 Abb. N. C. 134.
[g] (N. Y. City Ct. 1892) A person designated as beneficiary of a policy issued by a benefit society, who voluntarily and gratuitously pays the assessments thereon, and not under any contract with the insured, acquires no vested interest therein as against a person afterwards named beneficiary by the insured.-Nix v. Donovan, 18 N. Y. Supp. 435.
[b] (Tenn. Sup. 1897) One who has a mutual benefit policy may change the beneficiary, where authorized by the insurer's by-laws, though the original beneficiary has paid assessments or incurred expenses.-Fischer v. Fischer, 42 S. W. 448, 99 Tenn. 629.
5. Change in Statutes and By-Laws.
[a] (Ill. Sup. 1898) Where the beneficiary in an endowment certificate, issued by a mutual benefit society organized under Act March 28, 1874, relating to *corporations not for pecuniary profit," was changed by issuing a new certificate in lieu thereof, prior to the passage of Act June 22, 1893, providing that the paymeut of death benefits by such societies should be made only to the families, heirs, etc., of the deceased member, and that they should "not be willed, assigned, or otherwise transferred to any other person," the rights of the beneficiary named in the new certificate were not affected by such later act.-Delaney v. Delaney, 51 N. E. 961, 175 III. 187, affirming (1897) 70 Ill. App. 130.
[b] (Mo. App. 1896) Where a fraternal beneficial corporation issued a benefit certificate to a member before the Revised Statutes took effect, but he changed the beneficiary under the certificate after they took effect, the rights of the new beneficiary are governed by the present Revision.-Grand Lodge v. McKinstry, 67 Mo. App. 82.
(c) (N. J. Ch. 1899) A by-law adopted after the issuance of a certificate by a beneficial insurance association, giving a member power to change a beneficiary, is not retroactive, where, under the old certificate, the beneficiary had a vested interest.-Association v. Winterstein, 44 Atl. 199.
[C] (Ohio Com. Pl. 1890) Plaintiff's husband obtained a benefit certificate from defendant company, payable to his children, which he thereafter surrendered, without indorsement of his children's consent, and obtained a new certifi(ate payable to plaintiff. When the first certificate was issued the constitution of the society required the consent of the beneficiary to be indorsed on the old certificate to authorize a change of beneficiary. When the second certificate was issued no such consent was necessary. Held, that the first beneticiaries had no vested rights in the certificate, their interest being subject to the right of the society to make a rule abrogating any requirement in respect of change of beneficiary, and that the wife was entitled to the insurance under the second certificate.—Thesing v. Supreme Lodge, 11 Ohio Dec. 88, 24 Wkly. Law Bul. 401.
[e] (R. I. Sup. 1889) A mutual benefit certificate provided that it was a contract with the member alone, and not with the beneficiary, and that the member might substitute another beneficiary by complying with the laws of the order, which at the time of issue of the certificate required the beneficiary's consent to such change, but which were afterwards amended so as to dispense with such consent. Held, that the beneficiary took no vested interest in the insurance; that the laws of the order referred to were the laws existing at the time of the substitution, and not at the time of issue; and that the substitution of another after the amendment, without the original beneficiary's consent, was valid.-Supreme Council v. Morrison, 17 Atl. 57, 16 R. I. 468.
[f] (Tex. Sup. 1888) Where the constitution of a mutual benefit society provides that its by-laws may be amended at any time, a beneficiary in a benefit certificate, resulting from the insured's membership therein, who is not a member of the society, cannot complain that a by-law in existence at the time the certificate was issued. providing that the member may surrender the certificate, and receive a new one, with the consent of the beneficiary, was amended so as to omit the consent of the beneficiary,—the beneficiary having no vested rights in such certificate, not being a party to the contract; nor can be recover on the original certificate, it having been surrendered, and a new one issued.Byrne v. Casey, 8 S. W. 38, 70 Tex. 247. 6. Determination of Value of Vested Interest on Change.
[a] (N. J. Ch. 1899) Where a certificate of a benefit insurance association creates a vested interest in the beneficiary, and the insured surrenders the old, and takes out a new, certificate, the extent of the vested interest of the beneficiary in the old certificate is its value at the time of the change.—Association v. Winterstein, 44 Atl. 199.
[b] (N. J. Ch. 1899) The value of a certificate of a beneficial insurance association, surrendered by the insured, in which the beneficiary has vested interest, is the difference between the amount payable on the death of the member, and the amount of payments, with interest, which will be required to keep the certificate alive during the probable period of the member's life.--Association v. Winterstein, 44 Atl. 199.
II. DESIGNATION OF SUBSTITUTED BENEFICIARY. 1. In General.
[a] (N. Y. Sup. 1889) The fact that the decedent attempted to name a beneficiary in the second certificate, who was not entitled to take under the rules and regulations of the association, conferred no right on plaintiff.-Luhrs v. Supreme Lodge, 7 N. Y. Supp. 487, 54 Hun, 636.
[b] (N. Y. Sup. 1897) A tentative and ineffective designation of one beneficiary does not revoke a prior designation.—Coyne v. Bowe, 48 N. Y. Supp. 337, 23 App. Div. 261.
(c) (R. I. Sup. 1889) A gift of a mutual benefit certificate by husband to wife, she being the beneficiary named therein, is not sufficiently shown by the husband's declarations that he had given the insurance to her, and by her possession of it; he having afterwards obtained it, and procured a change in the beneficiary.-Supreme Council v. Morrison, 17 Atl. 57, 16 R. I. 468.
[d] (Tenn. Sup. 1898) Where a member of a benevolent association, who was mentally infirm, from old age, and incapable of transacting any business requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, canceled his benefit certificate, which was payable to his niece, and procured the issuance of one pay. able to a person not related to or dependent on him, such certificate is void, and the niece will be deemed the true beneficiary.-Offill v. Supreme Lodge, 46 S. W. 758. 2. Compliance with Rules.
[a] (Iowa Sup. 1887) The beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, who are affected by an attempted change of beneficiaries, may avail themselves of the failure of the insured to comply with the contract, as well as the company with whom it was made.-Wendt v. Iowa Legion of Honor, 34 N. W. 470, 72 Iowa, 682.
[b] (lowa Sup. 1887) Where the constitution provides for a method of changing the beneficiary, this provision is part of the contract, and the right to change can be exercised in no other way.-Wendt v. Legion of Honor, 34 N. W. 470, 72 Iowa, 682.
(c) (Ky. App. 1887) Where defects in the formalities prescribed by the law of a society as to a change in the designation of a beneficiary have been waived by the society and the benefit paid, the former beneficiary cannot take advantage of such defects.- Manning v. United Workmen, 5 S. W. 385, 86 Ky. 136.
[d] (Mo. App. 1896) Where a certificate of insurance in a benefit association provides that a member may change his beneficiary at any time by complying with certain requirements of the by-laws, a substitution of beneficiaries in a manner not authorized by such by-laws is invalid.—Head v. Supreme Council, 2 Mo. App. Rep'r, 1110.
[e] (N. Y. Sup. 1899) A change in beneficiaries cannot be made without compliance with rules of association relating thereto, where there is nothing to prevent it, and it has not been waived by the association.—Wilson v. Bryce, 60 N. Y. Supp. 132, 43 App. Div. 491.
 (Tenn. Sup. 1898) Where the assured desired to change the beneficiary named in his benefit certificate, and for that purpose surrendered it, and procured a new one, payable to the substituted beneficiary, the fact that the substitution was effected without complying with all the formalities required by the association will not avail the beneficiary named in the old certificate, where the association made no objection thereto.-Schardt v. Schardt, 45 S. W. 340, 100 Tenn. 276. 3. Consent of Beneficiary.
[a] A beneficiary acquires no vested right to the benefits to accrue on the death of the member, until such death occurs, and the member may exercise the power of appointment without the consent of such beneficiary, and without restriction other than such as may be imposed by organic law, or the rules of the society. —(U. S. C. C., Iowa, 1887) Lamont v. Grand Lodge, 31 Fed. 177; (Ind. Sup. 1887) Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Burkhart, 10 N. E. 79, 11 N. E.
449, 110 Ind. 189. [b] (La. Sup. 1890) A policy of life insurance, in which the wife is named as beneficiary, cannot be converted into separate property of the husband, or into a community asset by its surrender to the insurer by the insured, and the issuance of a new policy, in which another and different beneficiary is named, unless the consent of the former beneficiary is first legally obtained.-Putnam v. Insurance Co., 7 South. 602, 42 La. Ann. 739.
(c) (Mich. Sup. 1888) Under by-laws, giving members power to change the beneficiaries named, as no right vests in the latter before the member's death, the change can be made without their consent.--Association v. Montgomery, 38 N. W. 588, 70 Mich. 587.
[d] (Tenn. Sup. 1892) Where the by-laws of a mutual benefit association provide that the assured shall not substitute a new beneficiary, except "with the consent of the beneficiary,” but the constitution declares all by-laws subject to amendment, and subsequently said by-law is amended so that a new beneficiary may be substituted without the first beneficiary's consent, the beneficiary of a certificate issued before the amendment, who is not a party to the contract, has no vested rights therein, and cannot complain if the assured, without his consent, selects a new beneficiary.—Catholic Knights v. Kuhn, 18 S. W. 385, 91 Tenn. 214. 4. Consent of Insurer.
(a) (Ill. App. 1898) The conditions of the approval of the assignment of a beneficiary certificate are the acts of the society, and no part of the contract with the assured, and cannot have the effect of limiting the right of the assured to change the beneficiary by assignment.--Moore v. Society, 76 Ill. App. 433.
[b] (Iowa Sup. 1887) The fact that the insured authorizes a change in the beneficiaries and the secretary of the company assents and acts as though the beneficiaries had been properly changed, will not constitute a valid change as against the first beneficiaries, when the secretary has performed acts beyond his authority, and the provisions of the constitution as to such changes have not been complied with.-Wendt v. Legion of Honor, 34 N. W. 470, 72 Iowa, 682.
[c] (Iowa Sup. 1897) A provision on the back of the certificate in a benefit society that "in case of assignment of the within certificate the beneficiary must consent thereto, and said assignments must be approved by the secretary; •
otherwise the assignment shall be void,”-does not limit the power of assured to change his beneficiary.—Carpenter v. Knapp, 70 N. W. 761, 101 Iowa, 712, 38 L. R. A. 128.
[d] (Mass. Sup. 1889) By the laws of the corporation, a petition for substitution was required to have the seal of the member's subordinate council, and to be attested by the subordinate secretary. A member delivered his certificate and a petition for substitution to the subordinate secretary, who, acting in collusion with the original beneficiary, the member's wife, delivered the certificate to her, and forwarded the petition without sealing or attesting it. The corporation, notwithstanding these omissions, recognized the petition as valid, and stood ready to make the substitution if it had received the certificate. Held, that the wife would not be heard to object that there was no valid substitution.-Marsb v. Supreme Council, 21 N. E. 1070, 149 Mass. 512, 4 L. R. A. 382.
[e] (Mo. App. 1898) Where a fraternal benefit society accepted the wife as the beneficiary of its certificate during the life of her husband, and has interposed no defense to her claim since his death, the former beneficiary is precluded from so doing.-Grand Lodge v. Reneau, 75 Mo. App. 402.
[f] (R. I. Sup. 1898) Where the insurance company files a bill of interpleader offering to pay the amount of the life insurance policy into court, it will be considered to have waived its right to object to a change of beneficiaries on the ground that it did not consent thereto.—Insurance Co. v. White, 40 Atl. 5, 20 R. I. 457.
[g] (R. I. Sup. 1898) Where the insured in a life insurance policy desired to change the beneficiaries, and did everything on her part to make the change, but, through the company's negligence, no change was recorded on its books when she died, the company will be estopped from setting up a claim that the change was illegal, because it had not consented thereto.-Insurance Co. v. White, 40 Atl. 5, 20 R. I. 457.
[h] (R. I. Sup. 1898) The provision in a life insurance policy which permits a change of beneficiaries only with consent of the company is for the benefit of such company; and where it waives such condition, or is estopped from pleading it, and the assured did everything in her power to make a change before her death, although the company did not consent thereto, the substituted beneficiary is entitled to the amount of the policy.-Insurance Co. v. White, 40 Atl. 5, 20 R. I. 457 . 5. Incapucity of Substituted Beneficiary.
[a] (Mass. Sup. 1897) The designation of a beneficiary in a benefit certificate which has been surrendered holds good where the beneficiary named in the certificate issued in lieu thereof is not entitled to take.-Smith v. Association, 46 N. E. 620, 168 Mass. 213.
[b] (Miss. Sup. 1897) Where a member of a beneficial association surrenders his certificate, in which his wife is beneficiary, and takes out another for the benefit of his creditor, which, under the laws of the order, he is not permitted to do, on his death the wife has no right to the fund as beneficiary under such surrendered certificate.-Carson v. Vicksburg Bank, 22 South. 1, 75 Miss. 167, 37 L. R. A. 559. 6. Change by Will.
[a] (Iowa Sup. 1889) Where a member of a beneficiary society makes a change of beneficiaries by will, a method not in compliance with the contract of insurance, but the original beneficiary induces the assured to rely upon her acquiescence in the provisions of such will, and accepts benefits under it after his decease, she is estopped from afterwards claiming the beneficiary fund under the certificate.-Hainer v. Legion of Honor, 43 N. W. 185, 78 Iowa, 245.
[b] (Cal. Sup. 1895) A certificate in a mutual benefit association provided for payment of benefits to certain named beneficiaries. Held that, where there had been no revocation of the certificate, the insured had no interest which he could dispose of by will.—Silva v. Supreme Council, 42 Pac. 32, 109 Cal. 373.
[C] (Mich. Sup. 1895) The rules of a benefit association provided that a change of beneficiary could be made only by indorsing the desire for change on the back of the certificate, and paying a recording fee. Deceased took out a policy in favor of his wife, and, after divorce from her, made a sworn statement to the company that he desired a change of beneficiary, and could not obtain possession of the certificate from his former wife. On the company's disapproval of the application, he disposed by will of the proceeds to become due on the policy. Held, that such disposition created a valid change of beneficiary.-Grand Lodge v. Kohler, 63 N. W. 897, 106 Mich. 121.
[d] (Tenn. Sup. 1836) The laws of a mutual benefit society and its certificate authorized the member to dispose of the certificate by will. A member, whose certificate was payable to his wife, signed a paper addressed "to the officers and members," which recited that, “it is my will that the benefit named in this certificate be paid to F., my wife.” The paper was not attested nor probated as a will. Held, that such paper gave the wife no vested interest in the certificate.-Handwerker v. Diermeyer, 36 S. W. 869, 96 Tenn. 619.
[e] (Vt. Sup. 1898) Where a person procures life insurance for the benefit of another, and reserves no power in the policy to cut off or modify the interest