Van Doren v. United States

S.D. California

Van Doren v. United States

68 F. Supp. 222, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2132

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedOctober 4, 1946

DocketCiv. No. 4742

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 68 F. Supp. 222 (Van Doren v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Doren v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 222, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2132 (S.D. Cal. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

O’CONNOR, District Judge.

This action is brought by the plaintiff, the widow of Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, an Army Air Force officer, to obtain the benefits of two National Service life insurance policies issued pursuant to the National Service Life Insurance Act, 38 U.S. C.A. § 801 et seq.

On July 1, 1942 Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, then an unmarried man, was issued National Service policy of life insurance, and his father, Benjamin Van Doren, Senior, was named as principal beneficiary, and his sister as contingent beneficiary.

In August, 1942, Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, was transferred to Muroc, California, and was stationed there until his death. He was killed while on active duty on December 6, 1944.

On June 19, 1943, prior to his marriage, Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, executed an application for additional National Service life insurance policy, which insurance became effective on July 1, 1943, and his father was designated beneficiary.

On June 27, 1943, Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, married Margaret Mary Alice Fur-nivall, at Santa Monica, California. On July 22, 1943, Benjamin Van Doren, Junior, executed and delivered to the Government a document changing the beneficiary to his wife, the plaintiff in this action, and on December 6, 1944 he was killed while on active duty.

Both of the policies were originally issued before Van Doren, Junior, was married. The original beneficiaries, Benjamin Van Doren, Senior, as principal, and Benjamin Van Doren, Junior’s sister, as contingent beneficiary, were served with summons and complaint, but made no appearance in the action and a judgment of default was entered against each of them.

The only interest the Government has in the action is to pay the amounts due to the proper beneficiary.

[223]*223The original complaint was based on the theory that plaintiff had an interest in the insurance policies, contending that the premiums were paid out of community funds, and that the plaintiff and Van Doren, Junior, were residents of the State of California at all times following their marriage and up to the time of Van Doren, Junior’s death.

At the trial the defendant produced a document entitled “Designation or Change in Address of Beneficiary”, and this document was introduced as plaintiff’s Exhibit No. I. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint to conform to the proof. Exhibit No. I is as follows:

“Designation or Change in Address of Beneficiary

yI9mUMXJY8uepGScnKmlp

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI