A husband and his wife effected with an insurance association a policy whereby, in consideration of a premium of which each paid part, a sum of money was made payable upon the death of whichever of them should die first to the survivor. The wife having died, the husband brought an action upon the policy to recover the policy money.
Held: Upon the footing that the policy was an insurance by the husband upon the life of the wife, that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Life Assurance Act, 1774, it was not necessary, in order to maintain the action, that the plaintiff should prove that he had any pecuniary interest in the life of his wife.
The interest ‘must be a legal interest, not a mere chance or expectation’
Farwell LJ said (read in agreement by Kennedy LJ: ‘[Section 3 of the 1774 Act] has been held to mean ‘pecuniary interest’ measured by the loss that would be suffered by the beneficiary if the life stopped at the date of the policy. Lord Blackburn says in Wilson v Jones (L.R. 2 Ex 139 at p.150): ‘I know of no better definition of an interest in an event than . . that, if the event happens, the party will gain an advantage, if it is frustrated he will suffer a loss.’ And the interest must be a legal interest, not a mere chance or expectation: Hebdon v West; Halford v Kymer.’
Farwell LJ and Kennedy LJ
[1909] 1 KB 805, [1909] UKLawRpKQB 57
Commonlii
Life Assurance Act 1774 3, Married Wome??’s Property Act 1882 11
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland CA 19-Dec-2003
A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.195617 br>