Court Opinion

ID: 6896311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:50:09.725169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:00.835188
License: Public Domain

KERNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
What was the purpose of Congress in 1944 when it amended subsection (2) of the Act p Granted that under Regulation No. 3450 if an over-thirty beneficiary (for example, one fifty-four years of age) died before the expiration of the 120 months certain, or even a short time thereafter, he would not receive the face amount of the policy. Such a procedure was directly contrary to the terms of the contract and defeated the intention of the deceased service man. The amendment to subsection (2) changed this patently unfair administration of the Act, and provided an alternative mode of payment at the election of the insured or the beneficiary, consisting of a refund life payment which guaranteed the payment in installments of the full face value of the insurance con-, tract. That it was the intent of Congress to guarantee payment of full face value, even though the beneficiary had to elect such a method, is inherent in the amendment itself.
Whether the amendment can be considered as Congressional approval by silence of Regulation No. 3450 seems immaterial in view of what the amendment does. It permits the beneficiary, if she so elects, to receive the face amount of the contract. She is entitled to and can receive full payment. Hence plaintiff's contention that she is entitled to full payment with interest every ten years is without force. It seems to me that to concur in plaintiff’s contention would do violence to the spirit, if not the letter of the statute, which places a limit of $10,000 on the amount of the insurance which could be issued to any one person, § 602(q) 38 U.S.C.A. § 802(q) ; § 603, 38 U.S. C.A. § 803.
I would affirm the judgment.