Court Opinion

ID: 9601224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:39:55.113767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:17.828215
License: Public Domain

Olson, J.
(concurring specially)—In my opinion, the decision of this case should rest solely upon the conclusion that the contract described by the majority is a valid third-party donee-beneficiary contract. 1 Restatement, Contracts, 151, § 133 (1) (a). The insurance company is the promisor, and the deceased is the promisee, for the benefit of named third parties. The fact that such a contract is conditional, as in this case in which the promisee could have withdrawn the funds, does not render it invalid. The rights of the *548donee-beneficiaries under it are subject to that limitation. 1 Restatement, Contracts, 156, 165, §§ 134, 140. The conditional event not having occurred, the beneficiaries are entitled to the funds under the contract.
Hamley, J., concurs with Olson, J.