Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Wenckus
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice.
This complaint of interpleader by a life insurance company is before us on appeal upon an agreed statement of facts from the judgment of the Superior Court that the contingent beneficiary, mother of the deceased insured, is entitled to the proceeds of the policy. The appeal is denied. M.R. C.P., Rule 76 (now Rule 74(r)).
The beneficiaries named in the policy are the wife by name, now the widow, “but if such Beneficiary (ies) shall not be living, to the following Contingent Beneficiary (ies), Josephine Park, Mother.” The insured was killed by his widow, who pleaded…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Beck v. West Coast Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- Bullock v. Expressmen's Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Beck v. DowneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Beck v. DowneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mendez-Bellido v. BD. OF TR. OF DIV. 1181, ATUDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1989
- Brooks v. ThompsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
- Spencer v. FloydCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1990
- Diep v. RivasCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Maine Savings Bank v. BridgesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.