Knoche, Admr. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Where the right to change the beneficiary has been reserved in a life insurance policy, the beneficiary named has but a mere expectancy with no vested right or interest during the lifetime of the insured: Riley v. Wirth, 313 Pa. 362, 367; Irving Bank v. Alexander, 280 Pa. 466, 470; Weil v. Marquis,256 Pa. 608, 614; 37 C. J. 579, section 345. It has been held that a beneficiary who has but a mere expectancy cannot assign or transfer such expectancy during the life of the insured so as to preclude the latter's estate from claiming under the terms of the policy: Hicks v. Life Ins. Co., 166 Iowa…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Riley v. WirthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- De Zoteel v. Mutual Life InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- Entwistle v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Irving Bank v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Weil v. MarquisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Henderson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Bayer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Matthews v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
- Storb AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.