Court Opinion

ID: 9846725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:47:08.592248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.453709
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
In my opinion, there were material disputed issues of fact which the trial judge should have submitted to the jury for determination and I, therefore, dissent.
Whether the appellant Company complied with the policy provisions as to change of beneficiary was an important issue in the trial of this case. There was testimony that appellant’s agent attempted to sell these policies to the insured. The insured declined to purchase the insurance, but told appellant’s agent to let respondent, the insured’s ex-wife, take the policies. These policies were then issued on the insured’s life naming respondent, his ex-wife, as the beneficiary. Thereafter, this agent delivered the policies to respondent and collected the premiums from her for approximately three (3) years and until a few weeks before the insured’s death. This same agent, knowing that the insured had consented for respondent to take out the insurance, that he had delivered the policies to respondent, and had collected premiums from her for approximately three (3) years, accepted an application from the insured for change of beneficiary, upon the insured’s statement that the policies were lost and that duplicate policies be issued.
*341It is inferable that, when the application for change of beneficiary was made, the agent of appellant knew the whereabouts of the original policies and was certainly aware of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the policies and the interest of respondent therein.
The foregoing circumstances, if found to be true by a jury, would support a finding that respondent had a legal interest in the policies of which she could not be deprived except in the manner prescribed in the policy.
The knowledge of the agent in this case is imputed to appellant the insurer. Respondent was entiled to rely upon the protection afforded by the terms of the policy, that the beneficiary could not be changed except upon endorsement upon the original which, it is inferable, the agent knew was in her possession. It is at least inferable, if not undisputed, that at all times the insured and appellant knew the whereabouts of the policies in question and of the legal interest of respondent in them.
However, appellant contends, upon the basis of the testimony of its agent, that respondent consented to the change of beneficiary. This is disputed, raising still another factual issue which this Court has no right to foreclose as a matter of law.
I would reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand the case for a new trial.
Ness, J., concurs.