Court Opinion

ID: 9829475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:20:43.402594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.482576
License: Public Domain

On Motion. for Rehearing.
Appellees, in their motiop for rehearing, complain, among other things, of our statement in the original opinion -that the deceased veteran held a $10,000 policy in which his father, W. H. Mills, was named beneficiary, and ask that same be corrected. The record discloses that on February 1, 1918, said soldier executed and sent •to the Bureau of War Risk Insurance two applications, each applying for a $10,-000 policy, in one of which he named his father beneficiary, and in the other he named his, mother beneficiary. The certificate issued by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance did not in itself name anyone beneficiary. However, $10,000 was the maximum amount of insurance authorized by law to be issued to the soldier. Only one certificate was issued and that was for $10,000. It does not appear which application was attached to said certificate as issued. Manifestly the one on file in the office of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance as authority for said certificate was that in which his father was named beneficiary. After the veteran died in 1921, the father applied for payment to him of the insurance as beneficiary in the policy. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance so recognized him and for nine years made payments to him as such. This was obviously done with the full knowledge and consent of Bell Mills, the veteran’s mother. In addition to this, when, after the death of the veteran’s father, his mother undertook to collect the balance due under said policy, she treated it throughout as being payable to her husband as beneficiary, undertook to collect it as such, and in the so-called “settlement agreement” here involved, it was recited that W. H. Mills was the beneficiary in said policy, and the so-called settlement procured on that assumption. While this correction is made in the interest of clarity, we think it conclusively appears that the certificate or .policy involved should be treated as naming W. H. Mills the benefic-iary therein.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
Overruled.