Opinion ID: 1711580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Standing to Sue for Torts Relating to the Policies Insuring the Lives of Son James and Grandson Keyon

Text: In National States Insurance Co. v. Jones, 393 So.2d 1361, 1363-64 (Ala.1980), this Court held that a niece who paid the premiums on a health policy insuring her aunt and who would owe the expenses the policy was to cover had standing to sue the insurer for its fraudulent sales representations... made to and directed at the niece, even though the niece was not named as the applicant, the insured, the beneficiary, or the owner of the policy. Accord North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. v. Holley, 533 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala.1987). Factors important to this standing were that the insured ... was related to the plaintiff ..., the plaintiff occupied a special relationship with the insured ... and was involved in some degree in the application process [,] the plaintiff ... had assumed some responsibility for the care of the insured[,] ... the benefits payable under the policy... would have been beneficial to the plaintiff in paying any obligation arising out of the plaintiff's assumption of responsibility for the care or burial of the insured [,] ... and the plaintiff [had] paid either all of the premiums or some of the premiums. 533 So.2d at 499. Under the allegations of the complaint, the Newsons could prove such standing to sue the defendants for misrepresentation, suppression, and conspiracy to defraud committed in relation to the policies insuring the lives of James and Keyon. National States, supra ; North Carolina Mutual, supra. Therefore, we cannot, on the ground that the Newsons lacked standing to sue, affirm the dismissal of their claims for misrepresentation, suppression, or conspiracy to defraud relating to the policies insuring the lives of James and Keyon.
A party who pays the premiums on a life insurance policy has standing to sue for conversion of the premiums. See Gillis, supra . Because Mrs. Newson, using joint funds belonging to her and Mr. Newson, paid all of the premiums on the policies insuring the lives of James and Keyon, we cannot, on the ground that the Newsons lacked standing, affirm the dismissal of their claims for conversion of the premiums paid on the policies insuring the lives of James and Keyon.
A party entitled to the cash surrender value of a life insurance policy has standing to sue for the conversion of the cash surrender value. See Crown Life, supra . Because the policies insuring James's life do not identify the owner or the person entitled to the cash surrender values, the Newsons could prove that they were entitled to these cash surrender values. Therefore we cannot hold that the Newsons can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief for conversion of the cash surrender values of the policies insuring James's life. Thus, we cannot, on the ground of lack of standing, affirm the dismissal of the Newsons' claims for the conversion of the cash surrender value of the policies insuring James's life. However, because the policy insuring Keyon's life provides that Keyon was entitled to the cash surrender value of that policy, the Newsons do not have standing to sue for the conversion of the cash surrender value of that policy. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of the Newsons' claim for conversion of the cash surrender value of the policy insuring Keyon's life, because the Newsons did not have standing to assert that claim.