Hurd v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

Citations

• 106 Kan. 45
• 186 P. 998
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 449

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT-</p> <p>1. Life Insurance — Ineffectual Attempt to Change Beneficiary. The insured, who by the terms of a life insurance policy retained a right to change the beneficiary by a prescribed ^method, which included an indorsement on the policy, presented to the company a writing expressing his desire to make the insurance payable to his estate and also to surrender all claims on payment of the amount provided in that contingency; because of the loss of the policy, the company required an indemnifying bond as a condition to its taking favorable action on such application; while negotiations were pending with reference thereto the insured died, without the bond having been given. In a contest between the original beneficiary and the administrator of the insured, it is held that inasmuch as the requisite steps to that end had not been taken, and the company had not acquiesced in or recognized any change of beneficiary during the life of the insured, none had taken place, and the original beneficiary was entitled to the proceeds of the policy.</p> <p>2. Same — Written Application Made Part of Policy — Both Construed as a Single Contract. Where a written application for life insurance is made a part of the policy issued thereon, the two are to be construed as parts of a single contract, and any seeming conflict between them is to be reconciled, if that result can be accomplished by any interpretation to which they are fairly open. Where such a policy is payable in installments and on its face designates the wife of the insured ■ as the beneficiary, while the application provides that on the death of the wife the remaining installments shall be paid to his daughter, effect is to be given to both provisions by allowing the wife to recover the payments accruing up to the time of her death, and the daughter the remainder.</p>