From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shoemaker v. Shoemaker

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 16, 1959
263 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1959)

Summary

holding that although the National Life Insurance Act of 1940 makes no provision for the situation where a beneficiary kills the insured, public policy dictates that unless the killer was insane when he committed the act, or unless the killing was accidental or in self-defense, a beneficiary who kills the insured cannot recover the insurance proceeds

Summary of this case from Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Cole

Opinion

No. 13618.

February 16, 1959.

Kramer, Dye, McNabb Greenwood, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.

Howard H. Baker, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., Jeffers Jeffers, Oneida, Tenn., John C. Crawford, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for appellees.

Before ALLEN, Circuit Judge, and MATHES and SHELBOURNE, District Judges.


This is an appeal by a veteran's widow from a judgment of the District Court in an interpleader action denying her, as designated beneficiary, the right to receive the proceeds of her deceased husband's policy of National Service Life Insurance, and awarding the proceeds to the parents of the insured pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 802(h)(3)(C).

It is admitted that the insured died "as the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by his wife." Although the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended [ 54 Stat. 1008, 38 U.S.C. § 801-824 ], makes no provision for the situation where the designated beneficiary kills the insured [cf. Wissner v. Wissner, 1950, 338 U.S. 655, 70 S.Ct. 398, 94 L.Ed. 424], public policy founded upon the equitable principle that no person should be permitted to profit from his own wrong intervenes to prevent such a beneficiary from taking the proceeds of the insurance, unless the beneficiary was insane at the time, or the killing was accidental, or was committed in self-defense. See Restatement, Restitution §§ 187, 189 (1937); Burns v. United States, 4 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 106; United States v. Leverett, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 30; United States v. Kwasniewski, D.C.E.D.Mich. 1950, 91 F. Supp. 847.

Appellant alleged at the trial and urges here "that said gunshot wounds were inflicted upon her deceased husband in her own necessary self-defense." But there was conflicting evidence on that issue, and the District Judge found that appellant's act of taking the life of her husband "was not done in self-defense."

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., directs that: "Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses." After reviewing the record and considering the briefs we cannot say that the finding here challenged is erroneous.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Shoemaker v. Shoemaker

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 16, 1959
263 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1959)

holding that although the National Life Insurance Act of 1940 makes no provision for the situation where a beneficiary kills the insured, public policy dictates that unless the killer was insane when he committed the act, or unless the killing was accidental or in self-defense, a beneficiary who kills the insured cannot recover the insurance proceeds

Summary of this case from Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Cole

applying the "equitable principle that no person should be permitted to profit from his own wrong" to bar payments under the National Service Life Insurance Act (currently codified at 38 U.S.C. § 1901-1929) to a wife who shot her husband, even though the Act had no such provision

Summary of this case from Lofton v. West

involving the predecessor to the SGLIA

Summary of this case from Dachtler v. Anderson
Case details for

Shoemaker v. Shoemaker

Case Details

Full title:Clarice Kidd SHOEMAKER, Appellant, v. Euless SHOEMAKER, Administrator of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Feb 16, 1959

Citations

263 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1959)

Citing Cases

Standard Ins. Co. v. Guy

After all, the slayer rule, like the doctrines of undue influence and fraud, is justified in part by the…

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. McFadden

[P]ublic policy founded upon the equitable principle that no person should be permitted to profit from his…