Ratte v. Forand Et Al‪.‬

LUMMUS, Justice. The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing the bill after the sustaining of a demurrer. Her case is this. She is the administratrix of the estate of Marie Rattee. In 1927, at the request of the defendants, who are husband and wife, the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company issued an insurance policy, apparently on the life of Marie Rattee though not so expressly stated, without her knowledge, through false representations that the female defendant was a niece of Marie Rattee, and by concealment of the fact that she had an incurable cancer. After her death the defendants collected the proceeds of the policy. In 1933 the same thing happened with respect to another policy issued by the Prudential Insurance Company of America. At some time later a similar thing happened with respect to the last-named company, but no beneficiary was named in the policy and the collection of the proceeds awaits the determination of this suit. So far as the plaintiff's case depends upon the policies already mentioned, she states no case for relief. Her intestate did not take out the policies, furnish the premiums for them, or know anything about them. If the defendants had no insurable interest in the life of Marie Rattee, and obtained the policies from the insurers by fraud, that was a matter between the defendants and the insurers, which gave no rights to Marie Rattee or her estate.