Court Opinion

ID: 9693455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:42:10.360044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:47.136290
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, C. J.
(concurring in part). I concur in the result and agree with the reasoning in Mr. Justice Butzel’s opinion, except insofar as it predicates the holding that there was no effective change or designation of beneficiary in favor of Marie, after the decree of divorce, on noncompliance with insurance policy requirements relative to manner of making such change. It is my view that the policy provision in that regard was inserted for the sole benefit of the insurers, can be invoked by them alone, and is of no avail to Doris as against Marie to defeat an oral assignment of interest or change or designation of beneficiary in favor of Marie, made by assured in his lifetime, if it was otherwise valid and enforceable at law except for the policy provision. See Kaczmarck v. La Perriere, 337 Mich 500, and cases therein discussed; also, Quist v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., 219 Mich 406. Not in point, it seems to me, is Dogariu v. Dogariu, 306 Mich 392, and cases therein considered, holding ineffective an attempt to change beneficiary by testamentary disposition contrary to policy provision because, as stated in the opinion therein, the rights of the named beneficiary *30had taken effect at the moment of assured’s death and could not thereafter he affected by the provisions of a will. The testator could not give by will what he did not possess at death. The situation in the instant case differs in that Marie claims a completed transaction in the nature of a gift inter vivos effective during assured’s lifetime.
I concur in Mr. Justice Butzel’s result, however, by concluding that, as a matter of fact, the transaction claimed by Marie, but denied by Doris, is not established by the record and, further, by holding that the testimony in that regard in behalf of Marie, if accepted as true, fails to establish that assured accomplished any legal change of rights in respect to either Marie or Doris, entirely aside from the mentioned provision of the policy, inasmuch as a mere intent or expression of intent by assured to effect a change would have been insufficient. Reed v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 269 Mich 26, and Johnson v. Agricultural Life Insurance Co., 225 Mich 331.
Adams, J., concurred with Dethmers, C. J.
Boyles, J., did not sit.