Court Opinion

ID: 9751758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:58:07.535399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:58.744316
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
In the opening statement appellant twice specifically denied that she was a creditor of the estate. Furthermore, she made no claim that the policies had been assigned, pledged or donated to her either formally or otherwise. Her only claim to the proceeds of the policies was stated by her counsel as follows: “On behalf of Mrs. Nixon we claim the proceeds of each of these policies under the provision of the facility of payment clause, which states that payment may be made to any person equitably entitled thereto. * * * we feel that *309Mrs. Nixon is the primary person under this facility of payment clause to he equitably entitled to the proceeds of these policies.”
It is thus clear that appellant rested her claim on the facility of payment clause, but in this jurisdiction it is established that such a clause is solely for the convenience of the insurer and bestows on no person a right to the proceeds. French v. Lanham, 61 App.D.C. 56, 57 F.2d 422. I think the trial court correctly ruled that the ad-ministratrix was entitled to the proceeds of these policies.