220 P. 736 | Or. | 1924
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]
1. Whatever rules the railroad company promulgates concerning the insurance of its employees are a part of the contract of insurance and are, stating the rule broadly, as binding upon *593
the parties as any other provisions in the contract: IndependentForesters v. Keliher,
"You may designate the beneficiary, but in doing so you must name some person who under the statute or rule is qualified to be a beneficiary. If, instead of designating a qualified person, you name an ineligible person, the statute or the rule will by its own force ignore your designation and will name as the beneficiary whoever happens to belong to whatever class is specified by such statute or rule as the class entitled to the insurance moneys."
2, 3. Obviously, if a statute defines the class of persons who are eligible to appointment as beneficiaries and also specifies the person or persons to whom insurance moneys shall be paid in the event *594
the insured has named an ineligible person as his beneficiary, the appointment made by the insured is invalid and void; and furthermore, the insurer cannot waive the statute. We may assume, too, that if the policy is governed only by a rule of the insurer defining the class who are eligible to appointment by the insured and declaring that if the insured names as the beneficiary an ineligible person the insurance moneys shall be paid to a person or persons coming within a prescribed class, the insurer cannot in such a situation waive the rule and pay the moneys to the ineligible person appointed by the insured as the beneficiary. All the following precedents relied upon by the plaintiff involve a state statute or a rule or both a statute and a rule like the ones above mentioned: Anderson v. Royal League,
4, 5. However, the facts in the instant case clearly distinguish it from the precedents relied upon by the plaintiff. Under the terms of Rule 11 the employee may as a matter of right and uncontrolled by *595 the discretion of the railroad company designate any person who is related to the employee or who is wholly or partially dependent upon him. The rule does not declare that only such a person is eligible to receive the insurance moneys nor does this rule or any provision of the contract of insurance declare that if an ineligible person is named insurance money shall be paid to some other person specified by rule or by the policy. Rule 11 expressly provides that the employee may designate any person as his beneficiary, and, although this right of appointment is limited and controlled by the right of the employing company in its discretion to approve such appointment if the designated beneficiary is not related to or dependent upon the insured, the rule does not declare that a person who is neither a relative nor a dependent is ineligible to appointment. The contract of insurance goes no further than to say that —
"If there be no designated beneficiary surviving at the death of the insured, payment will be made * * to the executors or administrators of the insured."
There was a designated beneficiary surviving. See Taylor v.Hair, 112 Fed. 913; Wolfstern v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,
The conclusion of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED. MOTION TO RETAX COSTS DENIED.
BURNETT, J., took no part in the decision of this case. *187