Wojtczuk v. Oleksik

⁵²³ Mitchell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 14th day of August, in the year 1930, Philip Zawistowski insured his life in the Mutual Life Insurance Company, of Baltimore, in the sum of $1,000. The policy is classified as an ordinary life, the premiums being payable throughout the life of the insured. At the time the policy was issued, the estate of the insured was designated as beneficiary, and the first premium was paid with money borrowed from the appellee in this case, which was after-wards repaid by the insured.

All subsequent premium payments were paid by the appellee at the request of the insured, and upon his promise to repay them whenever he became able to do so. This promise was not complied with. Zawistowski was single at the time he insured his life, and remained single to the date of his death. At that time he worked as a long-shoreman, under the foremanship of the husband of the appellee, and he lived at the home of his foreman as a boarder.

He had known the appellee for about four years and called her “Aunt Pauline,” although he was no relation to her. The full policy is set out in the record, and among its provisions is found the following: “Change of Beneficiary. The insured, with the assent of the assignee when there is an existing assignment made as hereinafter provided, other than the assignment to the Company as collateral security for a policy loan, may while this policy is in force designate a new Beneficiary, reserving the right of revocation by filing written notice thereof at the Home Office of the Company, accompanied by this policy for endorsement; such change shall take effect on the endorsement of the same on this policy by the Company and not before. Should there be no beneficiary left at the time this policy becomes a claim by death, the proceeds hereof shall be paid to the executors, administrators and assigns of the insured.” Acting under the direction of the foregoing clause in the policy, the insured, on November 8th, 1930, executed a paper for the purpose of changing the beneficiary, said ⁵²⁴ paper being as follows: “November 8, 1930, To the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Baltimore, notice is hereby given of a change of beneficiary under policy No. 93400.

The rights as beneficiary under said policy in Estate of the Insured are this day cancelled and withdrawn and Pauline Oleksik (Aunt) is hereby constituted and appointed beneficiary under said policy. The undersigned hereby warrants the change of beneficiary hereunder to be strictly within the provisions of said policy. Philip Zawistowski. Witness, George A. Lewandowski.

Ahd in accordance with the aforegoing designation, the insurer placed the following endorsement upon the policy: “Beneficiary under this policy is hereby changed to Pauline Oleksik—Aunt, reserving the right of revocation, this 26th day of November, 1930. E. C. Brockenbrough, Registrar.” The policy as thus endorsed was delivered to the appellee, and remained continuously in her possession until after the death of the insured, when she voluntarily delivered the same to the insurer. Some time after it was issued, Philip Zawistowski developed tuberculosis, and was unable to work continuously. He ceased to live permanently at the home of the husband of the appellee; went to the country for a while; and at other intervals was confined in a hospital for treatment.

He continued, however, to visit the home of the appellee and her husband until his last illness. This latter illness covered the period from October 6th, .1932, to May 3rd, 1934, when he was a patient at the City Hospital, Baltimore, and the period from May 3rd, 1934, to June 15th, 1934, when he was a patient at the State Hospital for the Insane at Springfield, Md., where he died on the latter date. On May 2nd, 1934, the day before the insured was transferred from the tuberculosis ward of the City Hospital to the State Hospital for the Insane, the appellant, Mrs. Josephine Wojtczuk, who was his sister, visited the insured, accompanied by two agents or representatives of the insurance company, for the purpose of effecting a ⁵²⁵ change of beneficiary in the policy, from Mrs. Olesik to herself. Alfred Kulacki, one of the agents, testified as to this conference with the insured as follows: “Q. What did you have to say when you got to the hospital?

A. We bid him the time; said Good Morning. Then it was I asked him to sign. He didn’t want to sign. It took him ten or fifteen minutes before he signed.

Q. Did he say why he did not want to sign? A. He did make a remark he didn’t want to do it; that was all. Q. Who did he say that to? A. To his sister.

Q. Did he finally sign? A. Yes. Q. What happened during the ten minutes you stayed there? A. Mr. Amend and I were standing in the corner until he made up his mind to sign.

Q. What was he doing? A. Talking to his sister. Q. What did you hear? A. He said he didn’t think it was right.

She did say, I brought these men out here. You said you would and now you won’t. You will only make a fool of me. She said, I brought these men along and now you won’t sign.

After they spoke a while, he said he would sign.” The papers which the insured executed embraced the formal request for the change of beneficiary, and also a request for the issuance of a duplicate policy, upon the theory that the original policy was lost, although the evidence shows that Kulacki knew of the existence of the policy and that it was then in the possession of Mrs. Oleksik. They were signed in blank, and the beneficiary in the application for the change of beneficiary was not then named therein, but inserted by Kulacki later. Afterwards it was discovered that these papers were erroneously signed by the insured with a lead pencil, and within an hour Kulacki returned to the hospital and had new papers signed in ink. At this time the sister was not present, and it is not clear whether the blanks then signed were filled in before or after the signatures in ink.

Kulacki further testified that he visited Mrs. Oleksik on the same day and requested her to give him the policy, telling her that the insured desired to change the beneficiary. Mrs. Oleksik refused to deliver the policy to the agent, telling ⁵²⁶ him that it belonged to her, whereupon the agent mailed the requests for change of beneficiary and issuance of a duplicate policy to the home office of the company. John C. Kraft, manager of the policyholders’ service department of the insurer, testified that these papers were not received at the home office until on or about May 7th, or 8th, 1934, and that it was then discovered that the application for duplicate policy was executed upon an improper form. He further testified that the company did not honor the request for change of beneficiary because, under its rules, when such application is made, it is necessary to obtain the signature of the existing beneficiary, and if that signature cannot be obtained, it is the practice of the company to notify the beneficiary of the desired change by registered mail.

Upon receipt of registry notice that the letter of notification has been received by the beneficiary, but not before, a duplicate policy designating the substituted beneficiary will then be issued. Such was the status of the papers designed to effect the change of beneficiary, when the insurer received information that the insured was not mentally competent to execute the papers at the time of their execution. On May 29th, 1934, the manager wrote Mrs. Wojtczuk, the proposed beneficiary, that it would be impossible to comply with her request and make the change, unless she would furnish the company with a statement from either Dr. Speer or Dr. McCleary, both of Baltimore, that the insured was mentally competent on May 2nd, the date on which he executed the papers. The demand of the manager of the company was not complied with, and ho change of beneficiary from Mrs. Oleksik was noted on the policy.

Dr. Standish McCleary, a pathologist, and for thirty years one of the examiners in lunacy of the board of supervisors of city charities, testified that on May 3rd, the day following the date of the execution of the papers hereinbefore mentioned, he was called because Zawistowski had attempted suicide. Hé made a careful examination of the patient on that date and found him to be mentally ⁵²⁷ incompetent and incapable of executing a valid paper. Accordingly, he certified to the insanity of the insured, and later the patient was examined separately by another physician who likewise certified, in order that Zawistowski might be committed to the State Hospital for Insane, to which institution he was committed under the provision of section 32 of article 59 of the Public General Laws of Maryland. Dr. McCleary found the patient depressed and suffering from paranoia, a mental unsoundness characterized by delusions, one of them being that he “thought other patients in the ward were plotting against him to do him harm.” He further testified as follows: “Q. Is it usual in the course of mental diseases for the offset to be sudden?

A. No, sir. It is a slow development. Q. Would a man in the condition you found this man on May 3rd, have lucid intervals? A. That is doubtful.

I think his judgment—he might be lucid, but I think would be faulty. Q. Do you think if a paper was taken to him and he were told that if he signed it, he would be changing the beneficiary in his insurance