96 S.E. 654 | N.C. | 1918
The plaintiff sued to recover the amount of a life policy issued to Thomas Whitaker by the defendant, and payable, at first, to his sister, the plaintiff, as beneficiary, and afterwards changed so as to be payable to his wife, Colorado Whitaker, under a clause reserving the right to change the beneficiary. The right to make this change was not disputed by the plaintiff, but she contends that the change was not actually or legally made, so as to make it effective, before the death of Thomas Whitaker. The latter was a member of the Stone Square Lodge, No. 1688, at Washington, N.C. where he lived, and the policy was issued by the District Grand Lodge and was made subject to its laws, rules and regulations, one of which was that "The beneficiary may be changed on the face of the policy by returning it to the endowment office, certifying change desired, and enclosing 10 cents." The evidence tends to show that, a short time before his death, Thomas Whitaker applied in writing for a change of the beneficiary from his sister, Sofrony Wooten, to his wife, Colorado Whitaker, whom he had married since the policy was issued. This application was duly received by the Grand Lodge, and as there was some objection to the form, though substantially correct, another was made in the form prescribed for the purpose, and was also received by the lodge before his death, and accepted as full compliance with the rules and regulations; and after the death of the insured, Thomas Whitaker, the amount of the policy was paid to his widow, who was the new beneficiary. The policy had been lost, and the change on its face could not be made at the time of the application, but on 21 October, 1916, a new policy was issued by the lodge. This was after the death of Thomas Whitaker, which occurred on 18 September, 1916. The "laws, rules and regulations" of the lodge provide that a "Duplicate policy may be secured, in case of loss of policy, by making application, signed by the member and countersigned by the N. G. and P. S., with lodge seal attached, upon payment of 10 cents, which application shall be attached to the policy when so issued." Thomas Whitaker, in his *55 application asking for a change of the beneficiary, also requested that a new policy be issued to his wife. It appeared that the change of beneficiary was made in the office of the secretary of the Grand Lodge in September, 1916. The policy register, at the time of Thomas Whitaker's death, showed that Sofrony Wooten was the beneficiary in the policy, but that an application for change of beneficiary had been made, and that at that time only one policy had been issued. There were objections by the plaintiff to certain evidence of the witnesses, Daniel Roberson and P. A. Richardson, respectively, secretaries of the local lodge and the Grand Lodge, and a motion to strike out the testimony of the latter, which were overruled. They will be noticed hereafter.
The plaintiff tendered these issues:
1. Did the defendant, prior to death of Thomas Whitaker, reissue a policy upon life of Thomas Whitaker, making Colorado Whitaker the beneficiary thereof?
2. If so, was the said change of beneficiary in said policy authorized by application of Thomas Whitaker.
The court submitted issues, upon which the jury rendered the following verdict:
1. Did Thomas Whitaker, the insured, prior to his death, direct the secretary of the local lodge, Daniel Roberson, to sign an application for him, and arrange that the beneficiary under his insurance policy should be changed from Sofrony Wooten, his sister, to Colorado Whitaker, his wife? Answer: Yes.
2. Was the original policy then misplaced or lost, so that the insured, Thomas Whitaker, could not surrender it with his application for change of beneficiary? Answer: Yes.
3. Did the insurance company make the change of beneficiary, as requested, prior to the death of Thomas Whitaker, waiving the requirement for the surrender of the original policy? Answer: Yes.
Judgment for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff.
After stating the case: It is now considered that an insurance company may make reasonable rules and regulations by which the insured may change the beneficiary named in the policy of insurance, or his certificate in the case of benefit societies, and that such rules and regulations become a part of the contract. Where the policy or rule of the company, or society, provides that such a change may be made in a particular way, the method prescribed should be followed, but if the insured has done substantially what is required of him, or what he is *56
able to do, to effect a change of beneficiary, and all that remains to be done are ministerial acts of the association, the change will take effect, though the formal details are not completed before the death of the insured. It must be understood, however, that some affirmative act on the part of the insured to change the beneficiary is required, as his mere unexecuted intention will not suffice to work such a change. When the right to substitute another beneficiary exists by express reservation, or otherwise, the insured, or member of a benefit society, may, without the consent of the original beneficiary, and subject only to the rules of the association, change his beneficiary at will. Pollock v. Household of Ruth,
The general rule is that the right to a policy of insurance, at least to one of the ordinary character, and to the money which may become due under it, vests immediately, upon its being issued, in the person who is named in it as beneficiary, and that this interest, being vested, cannot be transferred by the insured to any other person (Central National Bank v.Hume,
In Donnelly v. Burnham, supra (which, as we have seen, was approved and affirmed by the Court of appeals of New York), the acts done by the policyholder were essentially the same as those done in this case, and the new policy, or certificate, was mailed to his address after his death, and the Court said: "It will be seen, therefore, that the deceased had in this case done all that was in his power, before he died, to make this change in the beneficiary under his certificate. The association had no reason for refusing the new certificate, and no interest in so refusing. No discretion in the matter. Its action in receiving the application and issuing the new certificate was merely formal and related back to the time when the application was delivered to the secretary of the branch of the association. The by-laws of the association provided for nothing to be done by the deceased after the delivery to the branch secretary. Everything to be done thereafter was to be done by the association and its officers and agents in the formal steps necessary to carry out and complete the change made by the deceased," citing Luhrs v. Luhrs, supra, as approved in Thomasv. Thomas,
The following language of the Court, in Schoenan v. Grand Lodge, supra, at p. 355, is relevant to one phase of this case: "The recorder is stated to be the proper officer to receive the instrument designating the change, and, having elected to accept it, it must be treated as a compliance with the requirements of the lodge. The main question is, did the member succeed in expressing his intention to change the beneficiary? Under the findings of the court, it is clear that he did, and that his desire was made known to the satisfaction of the association, substantially in accordance with the requirements of the constitution." In Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. v.White, supra, it was held that the beneficiary newly designated is entitled to the fund when the assured has done everything that was necessary on her part to effect the change, the provision for the consent of the company being inserted solely for its protection, and, therefore, one on which it alone can insist; and where it has consented, or waived its consent, the change of beneficiary was sufficiently made. In that case consent of the company had not been given, nor any record made of the transaction on the books of the company, and yet the fund was adjudged as belonging to the person named in the written request for the change. The Court said, in St.Louis Police Relief Assn. v. Strode, supra: "As a general rule, the regulations of the association respecting a change of beneficiary should be followed, but well established exceptions to literal compliance exist, as where the society waives a strict observance of its own rules; where it is beyond the power of the insured to comply literally with such regulations; and, finally, where the insured has done all, on his part and in his power, to change the beneficiary, but death intervenes before the full *60
consummation of the change. Supreme Council, etc., v. Cappella, supra;National, etc., Assn. v. Kirgin,
In none of the cases reviewed by us was there any more compliance with the terms of the policy than there was in this instance. But Nally v.Nally, supra, bears the closest resemblance to our case in its important facts. There, as here, the policy was payable to the sister, and the insured requested that it be changed, so as to be payable to the woman whom he had subsequently married. No change was made in the policy, which was in possession of the sister, but the officers of the company promised to attend to the matter, but failed to do so. The Court held that the gift to the sister was not perfected, so as to be absolute and irrevocable, there being a clause allowing a change of beneficiary or assignment of the policy. Held, further, that there being no condition in the policy requiring the consent of the beneficiary named therein to a change of any of its terms or of the parties entitled to claim under it; whether such change was to be effected by parol or in writing was a matter entirely between the assured and the company; and if the latter chose to dispense with any of the modes of effecting this purpose, it concerned no third party, nor could the company capriciously refuse the change. The marriage having brought the wife into the designated class, which qualified her to be a beneficiary, and the object of the change being a meritorious one, equity will consider that as done which ought to have been done, and give relief accordingly. Two cases could not be more alike in their material facts than Nally v. Nally and this one, except that in this case more was done than was attempted in that one. We might add many other cases to this list which establish beyond question the same doctrine, for there are such, but those cited will suffice to show how well settled the principle is by the decisions of the courts.
In this case the application was written by the insured's friend and an officer of the lodge; it was received by the Grand Lodge, and accepted as a sufficient compliance with the rules of the order. The policy had been lost — destroyed by rats, as the insured believed — and could not be produced for the "change in its face" to be made. A new policy could be issued, of course, but this provision is intended to be at the option of the insured, and if it could be thus issued the lodge should have issued it. But it was content with the written request which it had accepted, which was equivalent to a clearly implied agreement that the proper change had been made in sufficient form, or, at least, to an implied promise to make the change. This Court has held, in Floars v. Insurance Co.,
The question of evidence presents little or no difficulty. The testimony of Daniel Roberson was sufficient to show a compliance with the rule of the lodge, as the policy was lost and could not therefore be produced, and the lodge was satisfied with what Roberson said was done. His testimony was admitted, without objections, save two, which are clearly untenable, it being competent for him to state what the insured said to him, as he was asked by the insured to write out the request to the lodge and sign it for him. This was substantially all of his answer. Roberson could not have performed the service as the insured's agent, unless he knew what the latter wished him to do. The very nature of the question, to which objection was taken, discloses its competency. The other matter was irrelevant. It made no difference who paid the premiums.
It was competent for the witness, P. A. Richardson, to state that the application for the change was received in his office, he being the proper *62 officer of the lodge to receive it. That was an independent fact, and did not involve any disclosure of the paper's contents.
It generally is true that the writing itself is the best evidence of its contents, but here it was not necessary to prove more than that the insured himself had done all that was required of him, or all that he could do. To speak, therefore, of the change of beneficiary, as made in the records of the lodge, was harmless, if it was not competent. Again, the question, as it was framed, was proper, as also was the direct answer to it. If what the witness afterwards said, under further examination and cross-examination, without any objection entered, except by a motion to strike it out, after it all was in — was objectionable in any respect, the particular part considered so should have been pointed out or specified by objection to it in due time, for some of the mass of testimony was clearly competent; and under a general objection, or motion to strike out, we will not undertake to separate the two and eliminate the incompetent part. S. v. Ledford,
The charge covered all the controverted questions, and was clear and full. It was really a question of fact for the jury whether under the evidence the change of beneficiary had been requested by the insured and he had done all required of him. There was evidence sufficient to support the verdict as a whole, and we find no error in the record.
No error. *63