1. The general rule is that to effectuate a change of beneficiary of an insurance policy, the method prescribed by the policy must be followed, an exception being made where the insured, in attempting to change his beneficiary, has done all he could to comply with the policy requirements and has substantially complied therewith. In this case the insured not only failed to execute the necessary forms for change of beneficiary and to forward his policies for endorsement, but the evidence is not conclusive that he had fully determined how the proceeds of his policies should be distributed.
2. Under the terms of an insurance trust agreement entered into between the defendant bank and the deceased, the latter reserved the right to revoke and terminate the agreement by instrument in writing delivered to the bank. Held, under the facts of this case, that there was an effective revocation and termination of the trust agreement by written notice to the bank, followed by a subsequent definite notification of revocation given the bank through its agent. Further, since the policies which were the subject of the trust were withdrawn from the custody of the bank trustee, with the intention formed then or later never to return them, the purpose of the trust no longer existed. Such withdrawal, followed by the insured's subsequent acts with reference to the policies, was also a revocation and termination of the trust.
3. Insured deposited eight policies of insurance with the defendant bank under the terms of an insurance trust agreement. The bank was beneficiary of each policy. Later, exercising the power reserved under the agreement to do so, the insured revoked and terminated the agreement and withdrew the eight policies. He changed the beneficiary on five of the policies, but failed to do so as to the remaining three. There being a complete failure of the trust by reason of its revocation, the three policies became payable for all legal purposes to the insured's estate. If the bank trustee, the named beneficiary on the three policies, should receive the fund, it would be deemed to hold it as trustee of a resulting trust in favor of the estate and would be directed to pay the same over to the estate.
4. The fund representing the net proceeds of the three policies in which the bank trustee was named beneficiary now being in court, and the insurance company being in no way concerned with the manner of its distribution, to avoid circuity of action a decree should be entered directing payment of the fund direct to the executors of the insured to be administered according to the terms of the will.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Fielder in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, JJ. 10.
For reversal — None.