## Facts

- Dorothy Russell (formerly Dorothy Mouser) and John Mouser were married and owned a 13-acre parcel and its improvements as **joint tenants with right of survivorship**.
- The couple divorced in **November 1957**. The divorce judgment contained **no property settlement** and did not resolve ownership or insurance rights relating to the jointly held real property.
- After the divorce, Mouser continued to live on the property and, on **November 29, 1957**, procured a **fire-insurance policy** covering the improvements.
- Mouser was the **sole named insured**, and he paid all premiums from his own funds. Russell did not know about the policy and did not contribute to premiums.
- In the spring of **1958**, a fire destroyed the insured improvements.
- Mouser died about **six weeks after the fire**. By survivorship, Russell became the **sole owner** of the real property.
- The insurer paid the policy proceeds to Mouser’s estate. R. E. Williams, as administrator of Mouser’s estate, retained the proceeds for the estate.
- Russell sued Williams, claiming that because she now owned the property, the insurance proceeds should be paid to her.
- The trial court entered judgment for Williams, and Russell appealed. The California Supreme Court reviewed the matter and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a surviving joint tenant who neither procured nor paid for a fire-insurance policy may recover the policy proceeds from the deceased joint tenant’s estate when the policy named only the deceased joint tenant as insured and the loss occurred before the insured’s death.

## Decision

- **No.** Russell could not recover the insurance proceeds from Mouser’s estate.
- A fire-insurance policy is generally a **personal contract** between the insurer and the named insured; the right to proceeds belongs to the named insured (or, after death, the insured’s estate), absent an agreement or other basis showing the policy was obtained for another’s benefit.
- Russell’s acquisition of the real property by survivorship did not transfer to her the deceased joint tenant’s contractual right to the proceeds of a policy he alone purchased and maintained.
- Because Russell showed no agreement, contribution to premiums, agency, or other equitable basis entitling her to the benefits of Mouser’s policy, the proceeds properly belonged to Mouser’s estate.
- **Disposition:** Judgment for Williams (estate administrator) **affirmed**.

## Legal Principles

- A fire-insurance policy is ordinarily a **personal contract of indemnity** between insurer and insured; it does not automatically run with title to the insured property.
- When one cotenant (including a joint tenant) procures insurance in that cotenant’s own name and pays premiums personally, the proceeds generally belong to that cotenant (or the cotenant’s estate), not to other cotenants, unless the policy was obtained for their benefit by agreement or other legally recognized basis.
- **Survivorship in joint tenancy** transfers the decedent’s interest in the real property to the survivor, but it does not by itself transfer the decedent’s separate contractual rights under an insurance policy issued solely to the decedent.
- A noninsured cotenant may claim an interest in proceeds only upon proof of facts such as an agreement to insure for the common benefit, payment or sharing of premiums, agency, or another equitable ground tying the policy benefits to that cotenant.

## Conclusion

Russell v. Williams holds that a surviving joint tenant who did not procure or pay for a fire-insurance policy cannot claim the policy proceeds merely because she became sole owner of the property by survivorship; where the deceased joint tenant was the sole named insured and paid the premiums, the proceeds belong to the deceased’s estate absent an agreement or other basis showing the insurance was for the survivor’s benefit.


Russell v Williams, 58 Cal. 2d 487, 24 Cal. Rptr. 859, 374 P.2d 827 (1962)