Case Name: SCHMIDT, Admrx. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-02-23
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 197
Docket Number: No. 1395
Parties: SCHMIDT, Admrx. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.
Judges: (Washburn, PJ. and Paidee, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
SCHMIDT, Admrx. v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.
Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Summit Co.
No. 1395.
Decided Feb. 23, 1928.
Parlett & Veitch, Akron, for Schmidt, Admrx.
Musser, Kimber & Huffman, Akron, for Insurance Co.

Opinion:
OPINION OP COURT.
The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.
PUNK, J.
Counsel for plaintiff contend that the rights of the parties should be determined according to the laws of West Virginia, and that, under the law of that state, a contract of insurance obtained by a person of his own life, for the benefit of another having no interest in his life, is void as against public policy — in other words, that said Anna did not have an in-sux*able interest in decedent.
Counsel further contend that the legal effect of having named a beneficiary without an insurable interest in decedent, is the same as though no beneficiary had been named, and that, in the absence of a beneficiary so named, able to take under the laws of West Virginia, that the administrator of his estate is entitled to the proceeds of said policy, under the provision of the policy.
It seems to be conceded by counsel on both sides that, under the laws of Ohio, a person may, in good faith, insuie his own life lor the benefit of anyone whom he niay choose, though not related to him by blood or marriage, and that such insurance, so procured, is not void as being- against public policy.
Counsel for plaintiff seem to overlook the case of Burdotte v. Columbus Mutual Life Ins. Co., decided May 1, 1917, and reported in the 93 S. E. 366.
It is thus apparent that decedent had the right to make Anna the beneficiary under the law in either Ohio or West Virginia. This principle is supported by the. great weight of authority and is the rule in most of the states.
It must be borne in mind that there is a clear distinction between a person insuring his life for the benefit of another and paying for it himself, and a person procuring and paying for the insurance on the life of another.
The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed.
(Washburn, PJ. and Paidee, J., concur.)