The Widow, the Policy, and the Husband Who May Not Be Dead
A Tacoma life-insurance case turns into a fraud mystery: the company says Jonas Martin vanished in 1893 and that his wife knew it.
TACOMA, March 19.—Special.—Attorney R. S. Jones, of Seattle, has filed an answer in the superior court that suggests another Radloff mystery. It is in the case of Johanna C. Martin against the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company to recover the value of a policy on the life of the plaintiff's husband, Jonas Martin, who, she alleges, died October 27. The complaint has not yet been put on record. In the answer the insurance company denies that Martin is dead, and asserts that he secretly left the country in the fall of 1893, he and his wife having conspired to defraud the company out of the value of the policy. The company also denies the statement of the plaintiff that proofs of death were forwarded to the company at Portland, Me., in December, 1893, or at any other time. In another portion of the affirmative answer it is asserted that Mrs. Martin and the law firm of Palmer, Palmer & Thomas made an agreement in September, 1894, whereby the firm was to use every means to compel the payment of the policy, and, if successful, was to receive 50 per cent of the proceeds.
“The insurance company denies that Martin is dead, and asserts that he secretly left the country in the fall of 1893, he and his wife having conspired to defraud the company out of the value of the policy.”
Life-insurance disputes over whether someone has really died still hinge on paperwork, witnesses, and motive. The Martin case also shows how contingency fees could turn a widow’s claim into a high-stakes gamble—an arrangement that remains familiar in insurance litigation today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.