Court Opinion

ID: 9601227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:39:55.123012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:04.820659
License: Public Domain

Mallery, J.
(dissenting)—I concur with Judge Donworth, but desire to add the following: The majority opinion rests on the proposition that “the rights of the four nieces and the nephew in the supplementary insurance contract are derived from the original insurance policy through the exercise of Option 1.” (Italics mine.)
This premise is unsound. No present rights reach back of the supplementary contract. The original insurance policy was fully executed. It has no significance now, other than being merely the consideration for the option.
The supplementary contract is not a contract of insurance within the purview of RCW 48.01.040, which reads:
“ ‘Insurance’ defined. Insurance is a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay a specified amount upon determinable contingencies.” (Italics mine.)
*557The existence of a determinable contingency in the supplemental contract is negatived by the right to withdraw any or all of the “deposit” at will. Since the supplementary contract is not insurance, the insurance code does not apply to the exclusion of the probate code.
September 23, 1952. Petition for rehearing denied.