Court Opinion

ID: 9531471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:11:50.675835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:28.502239
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Mote, J.
In support of her petition for rehearing appellant, for the first time cites and relies upon Fletcher v. Wypiski et al. (1950), 120 Ind. App. 622, 94 N. E. 2d 916, the opinion in which was written by Judge Martin of this Court, and insists that our decision and opinion in the instant case contravenes the prior precedent established by the Fletcher case.
We think that the facts and legitimate inferences to be drawn in that case and the one now before us are substantially different. In Fletcher, supra, the decision of the trial court was against the original beneficiary, while here the decision was against the subsequent alleged beneficiary. It has been uniformly held that there is a strong presumption in favor of the trial court’s decision and every reasonable presumption is indulged in favor of the trial court’s action: City of Fort Wayne v. Bishop (1950), 228 Ind. 304, 92 N. E. 2d 544; City of Fort Wayne v. Miller (1938), 214 Ind. 599, 17 N. E. 2d 90.
The record before us in this appeal would warrant an inference on the part of the trial court that the enrollment card filed with the insurance carrier was *590not, in fact, executed by the deceased insured, and it seems to us that such inference not only was warranted but rather natural, in view of -the evidence to the effect that decedent had possession of the certificate of insurance until his death; whereas, in the Fletcher case, possession of such certificate of insurance was in the possession of the beneficiary. Stover did not suffer the handicap in the delivery of the certificate as did the assured in Fletcher.
In arriving at its decision, the trial court may have considered the opportunity to perpetrate a fraud on decedent and his estate by deciding that substantial compliance with the provisions of the certificate of insurance required; under the facts and circumstances made apparent by the record, that the prior or old certificate should have accompanied the enrollment card for either- endorsement of change of beneficiary thereon, or for the destruction of the prior or old certificate and the issuance of a new one showing the change of beneficiary. By this method, deceased insured then would have been fully apprised of what had been done upon receipt of the endorsed or new certificate of insurance. Thus he could have taken steps to correct any fraud which may have been hatched against any desire he may have had in this respect.
As we at least indicated in our original opinion, the funds from the insurance policy or certificate, by our decision, will come finally to rest in the possession of the natural objects of deceased insured’s bounty, his lawful widow and children, and not in the possession of one who was not and could not have been his wife, due to her than existing matrimonial status with another, which should strike any fair minded and objective person as abhorrent, were it possible to decide otherwise.
*591Rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported- in 204 N. E. 2d 874. Rehearing denied in 205 N. E. 2d 178.