Case ID: ny-st-rep_44/html/0480-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Arnott, Resp’t, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 8, 1892.)
    
    
      1. Insurance (Life)—Fobfeitube.
    The premiums on a policy were all paid at the time of the death of the insured. Two days before Tds death there were ten weeks payments in arrears, which were paid by the beneficiary on that day. Held, that there was "no lapse.
    '£. Same—Designation of beneficiary.
    The deceased delivered to plaintiff, with whom he boarded, a paper furnished by the defendant company, requesting it to pay the loss to her, and she subsequently paid the premiums to the agent. Such paper was not required to be sent to the home office. Held, that this was a sufficient designation of plaintiff as beneficiary, and entitled her to the money.
    Appeal from judgment of the county court of Kings, affirming Justice’s judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    Action upon a policy of life insurance.
    
      Thos. F. Magner, for app’lt; Louis H. Diclcerson {Daniel B. Thompson, of counsel), for resp’t
   Barnard, P. J.

On the 22d of August, 1887, one Alexander Robertson took out a policy of insurance upon his life for the sum of eighty-six dollars. The policy provided that if the assured died after six months, and before one year from the date of the (policy, only half the amount was to be paid. The assured did die on the 11th of August, 1888, so that forty-three dollars only was (payable upon the policy to those entitled to receive that amount. 'The premiums were all paid up to the time of the death of Robertson. On the 9th of August, 1888, the weekly payments of ten cents a week for ten weeks was in arrears, but on that day the company received the back payments from the plaintiff. There was no lapse, therefore. No issue was taken as to the death of Robertson, or of the proof of the same. The complaint averred the death of Robertson and the fulfilment of all the conditions of the policy whereby the loss became payable. The defendant pleaded only lapse and that the plaintiff could not sue. The death was proven on the trial as alleged. The only question remaining, therefore, is as to the plaintiff’s capacity to sue. The deceased boarded with the plaintiff. The case does not show the charter or by-laws of the company. The plaintiff insured the life of Robertson, and he gave her a paper addressed to the company, defendant, to pay her the loss. This request and designation of beneficiary was written evidently on a paper furnished by the company. This form provided that the designation of beneficiary should not be‘ returned to the home office in Newark, N. J., but sent by the agent who received it to the person who held the policy. The agent collected the premiums of the plaintiff under the policy and designation of beneficiary, and it .is satisfactory evidence that all things were complied with to permit the beneficiary (plaintiff) to reap the fruits of her payments to the defendant.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.