Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

declared objects of the association, that, upon the death of the beneficiary and tend to make the death benefit a during the lifetime of the member, simple life insurance, to be disposed the fund should go to the widow and of under the general laws regulating children if no new beneficiary were the succession.

designated. Where the beneficiary department A creditor of a member of a mutual of a fraternal order was established benefit society not being eligible as to provide relief to members and their a beneficiary, in case such person is families in case of the death or total named as beneficiary, the certificate disability of the members, the benefit will be construed, in connection with fund, upon the death of a member who the charter of the society, as a conhas designated a person not eligible tract to pay to the widow and children to take, goes to the widow as the sole of the insured the amount of the member of the family. Lister v. Lister insurance (abstract opinion). Ken(1898) 73 Mo. App. 99.

tucky Grangers' Mut. Ben. Soc. v. In Arthars v. Baird (1890) 20 Phila. McGregor (1886) 7 Ky. L. Rep. 750. (Pa.) 287, a benefit fund in a fraternal And to the same effect, see Gibson organization the object of which was V. Kentucky Grangers' Mut. Ben. “to pledge the members to the pay- Soc. (1886) 8 Ky. L. Rep. 520 (abment of a stipulated sum to such stract). beneficiary as a deceased member may An award of the district court, have designated while living, under which apportions a fund due on a such restrictions and upon such con- membership certificate in a beneficial ditions as the order may prescribe," association, which the association has was awarded to the member's widow paid into court, equally between the as against the administrator of the widow, who was the second wife, and named beneficiary, where the bene- the son of a deceased member who ficiary named in the membership cer- had died without designating a new tificate had predeceased the member. beneficiary after the death of his first There was, however, a provision in the wife, is evidently fair and will not be by-laws which required a married disturbed at the instance of the son's member to name his wife, or wife and guardian, where the by-laws provide children, as beneficiaries. Nor could that the fund is to be payable to the the administrator of the member re- member's wife, or to such person or cover the fund for the benefit of the

persons as he may subsequently diestate, since the member has rect. Rollins v. McHatton (1891) 16 individual property in the fund, but Colo. 203, 25 Am. St. Rep. 260, 27 Pac. only a power to designate the bene- 264. The court stated that it was not ficiary.

called upon to consider what the reThe widow and children, and not sult would have been if the society the creditors, are entitled to the bene- had refused to make the payment and fit of an endowment certificate of a asserted its right to a reversion; the member of a fraternal organization, implication from the opinion seems to notwithstanding that the member had be, however, that the court would changed the beneficiary by substitut- have held that the fund would revert ing for his wife a person whom he to the society, had the society interintended to be nominal beneficiary as posed a claim therefor, as it is said trustee for a creditor, where the con- that the son of the original benestitution of the organization provided ficiary, who had predeceased the memthat the benefit should be for the per- ber, as her heir, had no right to the sons related to or dependent upon the fund, as no interest had vested in the member, and should never be appro- mother as beneficiary; and since the priated to the payment of a debt member had no interest in the fund, against his estate. Carson v. Vicks- but only a power of appointment, the burg Bank (1897) 75 Miss. 167, 37 fund could not in any event become L.R.A. 559, 65 Am. St. Rep. 596, 22 an asset of his estate. So. 1. The by-laws provided, however, A benefit fund due under a certifi

no

[ocr errors]

cate of a benevolent order, a by-law of ber, where the beneficiary named which provides that “each member therein died prior to the member's shall enter upon his application the death, but goes to his surviving chilname or names of the members of his

dren, one of the objects of the order family or those to whom he desires being the protection of the widows his benefit to be paid, subject to and orphans of its members. Interfurther disposal of the benefit as the national Brotherhood, M. W. E. v. member may hereafter direct," is pay- Duncan (1917) Tex. Civ. App. able to the children of the member 194 N. W. 956. upon his death following the death of And where the by-laws of an organhis wife, who was named in his cer- ization specifically provide who shall tificate of membership as beneficiary, take in case the member dies within the absence of any new designation, out having legally designated the and the children of the deceased wife beneficiary, the estate of the person by a former husband have no claim designated in the by-laws is entitled therein. Handwerker v. Diermeyer to collect upon the beneficiary's cer(1896) 96 Tenn. 619, 36 S. W. 869. tificate, where the person named dies

In Grand Lodge, A. 0. U. W. v. after the death of the member, but beGandy (1902) 63 N. J. Eq. 692, 53 Atl. fore the proceeds of the certificate 142, a member designated an ineligi- have been collected. Beeson v. ble beneficiary, and the benefit fund Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen was awarded to the children of the & Enginemen (1917) 101 Kan. 399, member, the association having inter- 166 Pac. 466. pleaded the parties, and there being Where a member of a mutual benea by-law of the association providing fit insurance association names his that, in case of the death of the bene- wife as beneficiary in his certificate of ficiary during the lifetime of the membership therein, and the wife, men:ber, the benefit should be paid to who during her lifetime made a will the widow, if living, or, if not, to the devising her property to her husband children, share and share alike, in for life, and after his death to their case no new beneficiary were desig- daughter, died prior to the death of nated.

the husband, who during his lifetime The surviving child of the insured, made a will giving the proceeds of the who is within the class specified by certificate to his daughter, and the the statute as an eligible beneficiary, wills were properly probated, the is entitled to the benefit fund upon proceeds of the said certificate, when the death of the parent, where an paid by the insurance company, beineligible beneficiary has been des- come the property of the daughter. ignated. Sanders v. Grand Lodge, A. Brew v. Clement (1893) 48 Kan. 386, 0. U. W. (1910) 153 Ill. App. 7, af- 29 Pac. 704. There was in this case firmed in (1910) 246 Ill. 555, 92 N. E. no question of the enforcement of the 962.

contract between the insurance comAnd in Grand Lodge, O. S. H. v. pany and any other person. Islet (1896)

Tex. Civ. App. 37 And in Re Sons of Scotland Benev. S. W. 377, the child of a deceased Asso. (1910) 2 Ont. Week. N. 200, member of the benefit association, the fund was awarded to the children who was the only person entitled to of a deceased member, where the receive the benefit under the charter, beneficiary named in the membership was awarded the fund, as against an certificate predeceased the member, ineligible beneficiary named in the and the statute in effect provided that certificate. The association in this in case all the beneficiaries died becase did not contest its liability, and fore the member, the fund should go in fact asserted that the fund belonged to the member's children, or, in case to the said child.

there were none, to his estate. The amount of a benefit insurance In Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W. v. certificate does not revert to the order Muth (1920) 91 N. J. Eq. 460, 109 issuing it, upon the death of the mem- Atl. 853, a member of a fraternal

as

organization, following the death of Connecticut. Supreme Lodge, N. his wife, designated as his beneficiary E. 0. P. v. Hine (1909) 82 Conn. 315, in the membership certificate held by 73 Atl. 791 (widow and children to him, his wife's stepdaughter, on whom exclusion of ineligible beneficiary); he had become partially dependentSupreme Colony, U. O. P. F. v. Towne who, under the by-laws which pro- (1914) 87 Conn. 644, 89 Atl, 264, Ann. vided that the beneficiaries under Cas. 1916B, 181 (surviving eligible such certificate should be the wife, beneficiary against estates of member children, parents, brothers and sis- and of deceased beneficiary). ters, or persons dependent upon the District of Columbia. Masonic member, was ineligible as a benefi- Mut. Relief Asso. v. McAuley (1882) ciary; upon the death of the member, 2 Mackey, 70 (widow against personthe benefit being claimed by the bene- al representative of deceased benefificiary named and by the member's ciary). surviving sisters, the organization Illinois. - Chicago Guaranty Fund paid the money into court and inter- Life Soc. v. Wheeler (1898) 79 Ill. pleaded the parties. It was held that, App. 241; Beresh v. Supreme Lodge, as the organization had paid the fund K. H. (1912) 255 Ill. 122, 99 N. E. into court, it would be treated in 349 (widow and adopted son equity as the property of the member, against ineligible beneficiary); Grand and would be disposed of on equitable Lodge, A. O. U. W. v. Ehlman (1910) principles, and the sisters having 246 Ill. 555, 92 N. E. 962 (insured's shown no special interest in the fund, heirs against ineligible beneficiary); and there being no question of statu- Starcke v. Plattduetsche Grot Gilde tory prohibition or public policy in- (1911) 166 Ill. App. 146 (widow of volved, the fund was awarded to the insured); Royal League v. Shields stepdaughter in accordance with the (1911) 251 Ill. 250, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) member's wishes, notwithstanding 208, 96 N. E. 45 (heirs of insured); that the by-laws further provided that National Union v. Keefe (1914) 263 in case of the death of all the bene- Ill. 453, 105 N. E. 319, Ann. Cas. ficiaries named, and in the absence 1915C, 271 (wife and child). of a new designation, and in the ab- Kansas. — Boice v. Shepard (1918) sence of wife and children, the benefit 78 Kan. 308, 96 Pac. 485 (father enshould be paid to the next living re- titled, as against insured's adminislation of the member in the order trator). named in the section designating the Maryland. - Meinhardt V. Meineligible beneficiaries.

hardt (1912) 117 Md. 426, 83 Atl. 715 I'I. Persons in eligible classes of bene

(widow). ficiories.

Rhode Island. Monroe v. ProviIn cases where a statute or the

dence Permanent Firemen's Relief by-laws or constitution of the society

Asso. (1896) 19 R. I. 491, 34 Atl. 997. name the classes of persons who

Texas. Grand Lodge, C. K. P. v. may become beneficiaries, it has been

Mackey (1907) Tex. Civ. App. generally held, in case of failure or

104 S. W. 907; Carr v. Grand Lodge, invalid designation of a beneficiary,

U. B. F. (1916) Tex. Civ. App. and in the absence of express provi

189 S. W. 510 (husband

510 (husband against sions governing such event, that the ineligible beneficiary); International benefit will go to those belonging to Brotherhood, M. W. E. v. Duncan the classes named in the statute or by- (1917) – Tex. Civ. App. —, 194 S. W. laws as eligible beneficiaries, in the 956 (surviving children); Appleby v. order named.

Grand Lodge, S. A. (1920) — Tex. Civ. Arkansas. Runyan v. Runyan App. —, 225 S. W. 588 (second wife); (1912) 101 Ark. 353, 142 S. W. 519 Grand Ct. 0. C. v. Welch (1923) (widow of insured).

Tex. Civ. App. 250 S. W. 457 Colorado. Finnell v. Franklin (father). (1913) 55 Colo. 156, 134 Pac. 122 Wisconsin. Given v. Wisconsin (uncle and cousin against heirs). Odd Fellows' Mut. L. Ins. Co. (1888)

71 Wis. 547, 37 N. W. 817 (second (Tex.) supra, the statute defined the wife).

persons capable of taking a benefit at Massachusetts. Clarke v. Schwar- the death of a member of a benefit zenberg (1894) 162 Mass. 98, 38 N. association, and the court stated that E. 17 (executrix for benefit of heirs); it was clear that the classes named Boyden v. Massachusetts Masonic in the statute, in the order named, Life Asso. (1896) 167 Mass. 242, 45 were entitled to the benefit of a cerN. E. 735.

tificate of insurance in a fraternal Michigan. Switchmen's Union v. beneficiary association, where there Gillerman (1917) 196 Mich. 141, was no designation of a beneficiary, L.R.A.1918A, 1117, 162 N. W. 1024 as it was the object and intention of (widow).

the law that, whether any person had Mississippi. Sykes v. Armstrong been designated or not, sonde person (1916) 111 Miss. 44, 71 So. 262 (estate named in the statute should receive of insured).

the benefit money, and it would be Missouri. — Lister v. Lister (1898) against public policy for the money 73 Mo. App. 99 (widow); Gibbs v. to revert to the association unless Knights of Pythias (1913) 173 Mo. there was no person bearing the relaApp. 34, 156 S. W. 11 (member's exec- tion named in the statute to the deutor for benefit of eligible benefi- ceased. And see Carr v. Grand Lodge, ciaries).

U. B. F. (1916) Tex. Civ. App. —, New York. Re Smith (1904) 42 189 S. W. 510, holding that in the Misc. 639, 87 N. Y. Supp. 725 (father). absence of any beneficiary, payment

Pennsylvania. - Arthars v. Baird of the death benefit should be made, (1890) 20 Phila. 287 (widow).

in the order named, to the eligible Where the beneficiary named in beneficiaries in its by-laws and statthe certificate predeceased the mem- ute. The association, however, in that ber, and the member thereafter exe- case, did not deny the indebtedness, cuted a will in which he directed the but expressed a willingness to pay the executor to collect and hold the pro- sum to the persons entitled to receive ceeds of the certificate, together with the same. the remainder of his estate, in trust The failure of a beneficiary, for the for certain persons therein designated, reason that the person designated is none of whom were within the class not entitled to take under a statute, of beneficiaries designated by the leaves matters as though no desigstatute or the by-laws and constitu- nation had been attempted, and unless tion of the association, the court in otherwise provided by statute, or by Finnell Franklin (Colo.) supra,

the laws of the society, the persons held that, upon the failure of the des- indicated by the statute fixing the ignation, the fund should go to the classes of persons for whom the funds class, or some one or more thereof, shall be accumulated are entitled to named in the statute, for whose bene- the benefit. Supreme Lodge, N. E. fit it could be legally accumulated, 0. P. v. Hine (1909) 82 Conn. 315, 73 and awarded the fund to the uncle and Atl. 791. cousins of the deceased member, who Where, in case of the failure of the under the statute were eligible as beneficiary in a benefit certificate, the beneficiaries, as against the executor society disclaims all right to the fund of the estate, stating that, the exec- and expresses its willingness to pay utor of the estate not being within it to such person as the court shall the class of legal beneficiaries, if he direct, the court will make an equitawere permitted to take the fund, fol- ble distribution thereof; and, as the lowing the wish of the insured as fund exists for the benefit of those expressed in his will, would be di- who may be designated as beneficiaverted from the purposes and objects ries, it will be awarded to the only for which the law authorized the cor- surviving person who is eligible as a poration to be brought into existence. beneficiary, as against the estates of

In Grand Lodge, C. K. P. v. Mackey the member and of the deceased

V.

are

[ocr errors]

beneficiary, neither of which could charter or by-laws will go to the perhave been designated as the benefici- sons enumerated in the charter and ary. Supreme Colony, U. 0. P. F. v. by-laws, in the order in which they Towne (1914) 87 Conn. 644, 89 Atl.

named. Masonic Mut. Relief 264, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 181.

Asso. y. McAuley (18S2) 2 Mackey And it has been held that where (D. C.) 70. the beneficiary designated is, by stat- Where the by-laws of a fraternal ute, ineligible to take, upon the death benefit society are in accordance with of the member his executrix is en- a statute which provides that the titled to the fund in trust for the benefit of such organization shall, up. benefit for those who, at the time of on the death of the member, go to the contract with the association was the family, heirs, etc., of the assured, made, were entitled to be named as the insured's father, as his heir, is beneficiaries. Clarke v. Schwarzen- entitled to the benefit as against the berg (1894) 162 Mass. 98, 38 N. E. 17. administrator of the insured, where And to the same effect, see Boyden the beneficiary designated in the v. Massachusetts Masonic Life Asso. membership certificate died before the (1896) 167 Mass. 242, 45 N. E. 735, member. Boice v. Shepard (1908) 78 where the beneficiary designated in Kan. 308, 96 Pac. 485, holding that a the certificate died prior to the death statute providing that, in case of the of the member, and the by-law pro- death of a beneficiary "in any policy." viding for such contingency was held before the death of the insured, the to be inapplicable, for the reason that insurance shall go to the latter's esit was not made a part of the policy. tate, was inapplicable to fraternal

In Given v. Wisconsin Odd Fellows' benefit societies. Mut. L. Ins. Co. (1888) 71 Wis. 547, And it has been held that where the 37 N. W. 817, the benefit was to be contract has been fully executed on payable to the person designated by the insured's part by the payment of the member, or his widow, children, all assessments, although the benemother, or sisters, etc., as the case fit has been made payable to the inmight be in the order named, if not sured's personal representative, who otherwise directed by the deceased is not within the classes who may, prior to his death, and it was held under the laws, be appointed a benethat where the first wife, who was ficiary, the insurer cannot escape liadesignated as the beneficiary in the bility, but the representative may recertificate, died during the life of the cover the benefit for the use of those insured, the direction that the insur- for whom it has been accumulated, ance money be paid to her was abro- and to whom it should be paid, in gated, and upon the death of the mem- accordance with the by-laws, when no ber the fund should be paid to the proper designation of a beneficiary person entitled thereto under the has been made. Gibbs v.

Knights of rules and by-laws of the company.

Pythias (1913) 173 Mo. App. 34, 156 Where it is a practice recognized S. W. 11. And a similar conclusion by an association that anyone becom- was reached in Mullen y, Woodmen ing a member may designate the of World (1909) 144 Iowa, 228, 122 beneficiary who is to receive the fund N. W. 903. payable upon his death, but the by- The court in the Gibbs Case (Mo.) laws make no mention of the desig- supra, stated that the later and better nation of beneficiaries, merely pro- authorities are all to the effect that viding that the fund shall be payable when the contract has been fully

the member's widow, orphans, executed on the insured's part, by the heirs, assignees, or legatees upon his payment of all assessments and dues, death, the personal representatives of and by his death, the society will not a beneficiary named in the certificate, be allowed successfully to assert its who predeceased the member, are not defense against the payment of the entitled to the benefit fund, which in benefit, that the designation in the the absence of any provision in the beneficiary's certificate was of one of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »