The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1914-07-30
An Interesting Insurance Decision.

Inc supreme court u iowa 1c-
Gently rendered decision in the
case of Addie M. Hicks, administra-
trix of the estate of Sherman r..
Hicks, deceased appellee, VS.. The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company, of Milwaukee, appellant,
which, as will be remembered by our
readers, was tried before Judge Max
we'll in Clarke county some time ago.
The case is of interest not alone
from the fact that it originated in
Clarke county but rather that it de-
termines point of contention in the
matter of life insurance policies.
Some time in 1910 Sherman Hicks
who at that time had two policies
with the Northwestern Mutual Life,
one for 81 900 and the other for 49,
900 entered upon an agreement with
the company to surrender his policies
upon the condition that he be paid
$500. In due time the money was
received and the policies cancelled,
one of which bore the alleged sigma
ture of Mrs. Hicks. Upon the death
of her husband Mrs. Hicks sued the
company to recover the face value of
the policies on the ground that her
husband at the time he entered into
the agreement with the company to
surrender his policies was of un-
sound mind.
In the district court the jury rem
dered a verdict in favor of the plain
tiff, whereupon the defendant ap-
pealed to the higher court with the
result that Mrs. Hicks was awarded
$I,859.71 by the recent decision af-
firming the action of the lower court.
The following extract from the
supreme courts decision deals with
an interesting point in life insur-
ance:
But there is another aspect of this
case which is worthy of appellants
attention even on the assumption
that the wife had some right or In
terest in the policy and that the eff
feet of her alleged act would work
surrender or release of such right
on her part while her husband be-
ing insane was not bound by the
surrender on his part. In what man
ner can that fact operate to wholly
release the company from its obli-
CATION as an insurer? The husband
being insane the insurance so far as
he is concerned was left unimpaired;
and if the wife's act eliminated her
as beneficiary of that insurance
company's obligation to the husband
to pay to whomsoever he might ap-
point was in no manner discharged.
Had the wife died before her hus-
band it would not have terminated
the contract but upon his death the
insurance would have been due to the
oio ho n.
pointed and if no appointment had
been made the payment would have
been due to the administrator for the
benefit of the estate of the husband.
The plaintiff is not suing in her In
dividual right but as administrative
and if anything is due from the ap-
pellant to that estate she Is entitled
to recover it even though it be held
that she has estopped herself from
claiming it in her own right. In
short the most effect of her act would
be to deprive her of her status as to
the designated beneficiary. Stated
otherwise, she could, if appellant Is
correct, cut herself off from any
right to receive the benefit in her
own right, but we are satisfied she
could not relieve the defendant from
it's obligation to the insane husband
nor could she est0p the administra-
tor of his estate from the right to de-
mand payment of the policy in case
there was no named beneficiary quail
flied to receive it at the death of the
intestate. So taking either theory
as to the power of beneficiary to
surrender her interest under q policy
of insurance which reserved the pow
er to change such designation at will
we are led inevitably to the same
conclusion-that the obligation Of
the insurer is not and can not be at
fected without the consent Of the
person insured.