Chapman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Inc.

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court in Montgomery County, which granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the appellee. The appellant’s husband, to whom she had been married since 1941, was insured by a policy of life insurance issued by the appellee company. The policy was obtained on April 12, 1954, and the appellant was originally named as beneficiary thereunder.

The right and power to change, from time to time, the beneficiary named therein was reserved in unequivocal terms. The husband paid the premiums thereon, with the exception of $18.00 paid by the wife after his death. On August 29, 1955, without the knowledge of the appellant, the appellee accepted an application from the husband for a change of beneficiary from the appellant to a person designated as “Marion K. Mellott fiance.” On November 28, 1956, the insured was killed as the result of a tractor overturning upon him. After the husband’s decease, an agent of the appellee informed the appellant that the beneficiary named in the policy had been changed, and collected from her (the appellant) $18.00 that the agent had advanced out of his own funds to make two payments on the premiums.

She claimed that this payment by her was induced by the representation of the agent that the appellee company would never honor a change of beneficiary from a wife to a “girl friend” of the husband. The appellant, as beneficiary under the ⁹⁰ policy, brought suit at law against the appellee, and, after the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, has appealed. There can be no doubt that the trial court was correct in directing a verdict in the appellee’s favor. A clause in the policy of insurance reads: “The Beneficiary under this Policy may be changed from time to time, upon proper written request, provided such a request is submitted to the Home Office together with this Policy for endorsement, but such change shall become operative only if this Policy is endorsed by the Company.

After such endorsement has been made, the change shall take effect and any interest of any previous Beneficiary shall cease as of the date of such written request whether or not the Insured is living at the time of such endorsement. Any change of Beneficiary shall be subject to the rights of any assignee of record at the Home Office.” The evidence disclosed that, after full compliance with the above requirements, a change in beneficiary from the appellant was duly made. Where the right by the insured to change the beneficiary named in a life insurance policy is reserved, the beneficiary has no vested or indefeasible interest under the policy during the lifetime of the insured, but only a revocable expectancy contingent upon being the beneficiary at the time of the insured’s death. Rosman v. Tr.

Ins. Co. of Hartford, 127 Md. 689, 693, 96 A. 875 ; Bullen v. Safe Dep. & Tr. Co., 177 Md. 271, 277 , 9 A. 2d 581 ; Blair v. Baker, 196 Md. 242, 248 , 76 A. 2d 129 ; 2 Couch, Cyc. of Insurance Law, sec. 308, p. 825. Neither notice to, nor the consent of, the beneficiary is necessary in order to effectuate a valid change of beneficiary, when the power to change beneficiaries has been reserved in the policy.

Couch, op. cit. The evidence, therefore, disclosed a valid and effectual exercise of such power reserved in the insurance policy, and the trial court was correct in ruling to that effect. But the appellant argues that to permit such a ruling to ⁹¹ stand will violate the public policy of this State, and “encourage philandering, adultery and sundry other sins against civilized society and Christian teachings.” The argument is