A-19253, AUGUST 17, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 118

A-19253: Aug 17, 1927

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE PERIOD THE BENEFICIARY WAS AN ENROLLED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A TRANSFERRED MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE. WHEREIN IS NAMED A RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES. MEAN INSURANCE WHICH IS REVIVED OR REINSTATED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF THE VETERANS' BUREAU SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 2. ANY SUCH INSURANCE IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS NAMED IN THE STATUTE. WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCRUED IN FAVOR OF THE INSURED DURING HIS LIFETIME AS FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY. ARE NOT PAYABLE TO THE DEATH BENEFICIARY WITHIN THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS NAMED IN THE STATUTE OR TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED. WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON FEBRUARY 15. DISABILITY COMPENSATION WAS CLAIMED BY HIM IN JULY.

A-19253, AUGUST 17, 1927, 7 COMP. GEN. 118

VETERANS' BUREAU - INSURANCE - REVIVAL UNCOLLECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION OTHERWISE PROPERLY PAYABLE, WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE PERIOD THE BENEFICIARY WAS AN ENROLLED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A TRANSFERRED MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE, MAY BE APPLIED AS PREMIUMS TOWARD REVIVING INSURANCE UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799. THE WORDS "HEREAFTER REVIVED" APPEARING IN THE PROVISO ADDED TO SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799, 800, AUTHORIZING REVIVAL OF INSURANCE BY APPLICATION AS PREMIUMS OF UNCOLLECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION, WHEREIN IS NAMED A RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES, MEAN INSURANCE WHICH IS REVIVED OR REINSTATED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF THE VETERANS' BUREAU SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 2, 1926, AND ANY SUCH INSURANCE IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS NAMED IN THE STATUTE. (NO LONGER FOLLOWED. SEE 7 COMP. GEN. 630.) INSTALLMENTS OF INSURANCE REVIVED AFTER THE DEATH OF THE INSURED UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799, WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCRUED IN FAVOR OF THE INSURED DURING HIS LIFETIME AS FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, ARE NOT PAYABLE TO THE DEATH BENEFICIARY WITHIN THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS NAMED IN THE STATUTE OR TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED, BUT SHALL REMAIN UNPAID.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL GINN TO THE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, AUGUST 17, 927:

CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 16, 1927, AND SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER OF JULY 29, 1927, WITH INCLOSURE, SUBMITTING THE CASE OF HARDIN NEAL COX, DECEASED, C-1,092,208, AND REQUESTING DECISION OF SEVERAL QUESTIONS UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT RELATIVE TO THE REVIVAL OF WAR-RISK INSURANCE BY THE APPLICATION AS PREMIUMS OF UNCOLLECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

YOU STATE IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

HARDIN NEAL COX ENTERED THE NAVAL SERVICE ON JULY 9, 1918, AND WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON FEBRUARY 15, 1919, BUT NOT FINALLY DISCHARGED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 1921. DISABILITY COMPENSATION WAS CLAIMED BY HIM IN JULY, 1922, AND AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION TO HIM WAS FIRST APPROVED IN DECEMBER, 1922.

WHILE IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THIS VETERAN WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT FOR $10,000.00 TERM INSURANCE, FOR WHICH HIS MOTHER, NOW SHOWN TO BE DEPENDENT, WAS THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY. THE RECORDS OF THE BUREAU SHOW THAT THE TERM INSURANCE LAPSED FOR THE FAILURE TO PAY THE PREMIUM DUE APRIL 1, 1919, AND NO PREMIUM PAYMENTS WERE MADE THEREAFTER DURING THE VETERAN'S LIFETIME. MR. COX DIED ON MAY 14, 1926, AND LEFT A WILL, NOW PROBATED, BY WHICH HE GAVE AND BEQUEATHED TO A BROTHER, W. CANE COX, ALL OF HIS PROPERTY,"INCLUDING MY INSURANCE, MY ADJUSTED COMPENSATION," AND ALL SUMS DUE AT DEATH FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SET OUT ALL OF THE DISABILITY RATINGS WHICH WERE MADE IN THIS CASE, BUT IT MAY BE STATED THAT BY REASON OF A RATING OF PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 12, 1922, THIS BUREAU HELD UNDER SECTION 408 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT, AS IT THEN STOOD, THAT THE LAPSE OF THE INSURANCE HAD BEEN PREVENTED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION. THE BUREAU ACTUALLY APPROVED AN AWARD OF PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS ON APRIL 19, 1923, PRIOR TO THE VETERAN'S DEATH, AND THIS ACTION WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE PRECEDENTS OF THE BUREAU THEN IN FORCE.

THE AWARD OF THE PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS WAS CANCELED BECAUSE OF YOUR DECISION OF MAY 10, 1923, TO THE EFFECT THAT A CLAIMANT IN RECEIPT OF NAVAL RETAINER PAY, AS WAS THE CASE WITH MR. COX, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NAVAL RETAINER PAY WAS RECEIVED. IN THIS CASE THE BUREAU HAD PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED COMPENSATION FOR A PERIOD DURING WHICH THE RETAINER PAY HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 408 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT. UPON THE RECEIPT OF YOUR DECISION, JUST CITED, THE AWARD OF THE PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS OF THIS INSURANCE WAS THEREFORE TERMINATED.

SECTION 212 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, JUNE 7, 1924, CONTAINED THE PROVISO THAT COMPENSATION UNDER TITLE 11 OF SAID ACT SHOULD NOT BE PAID WHILE THE PERSON IS IN RECEIPT OF ACTIVE SERVICE OR RETIREMENT PAY. THIS SECTION OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT WAS AMENDED ON SECTION OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT WAS AMENDED ON JULY 2, 1926, SO AS TO MAKE THE PROVISO JUST REFERRED TO EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 6, 1917, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD WAR PERIOD.

YOUR DECISION IS REQUESTED UPON THE VARIOUS PHASES RELATIVE TO THIS INSURANCE HEREIN INDICATED, THE PRINCIPAL OF WHICH MAY THUS BE SUMMARIZED: (1) AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF COMPENSATION DURING THE RECEIPT OF RETAINER PAY AS UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION; (2) WHETHER THE INSURANCE IS TO BE REGARDED ONLY AS INSURANCE HEREAFTER REVIVED SO AS TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES, BUT IF IT IS NOT SO TO BE REGARDED WHETHER THE CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY BY WILL TO THE VETERAN'S BROTHER MAY BE RECOGNIZED; (3) WHETHER, ASSUMING THAT THE INSURANCE IS TO BE REGARDED AS HEREAFTER REVIVED, THE ORIGINAL BENEFICIARY, NAMELY THE DEPENDENT MOTHER, MAY BE RECOGNIZED; (4) WHETHER AN AWARD OF REMAINING ACCRUED DISABILITY BENEFITS MAY NOW BE APPROVED IN FAVOR OF THE VETERAN'S ESTATE; (5) WHETHER THE BENEFICIARY OF THE INSURANCE WOULD BE ENTITLED ONLY TO SUCH INSTALLMENTS OF INSURANCE AS REMAIN AFTER THE VETERAN'S DEATH OR WHETHER SUCH BENEFICIARY UNDER YOUR DECISION OF JULY 5, 1919, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE FULL 240 INSTALLMENTS.

THE VARIOUS VIEWS SET FORTH WITH RESPECT TO THE SEVERAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSIONS STATED HEREIN, BUT IT IS NOT DEEMED NECESSARY TO ANSWER OR DISCUSS SUCH VIEWS IN DETAIL. YOU ALSO QUOTE FROM AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DATED JULY 24, 1926, RELATIVE TO QUESTION (1).

SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 16 OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799-800, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

WHERE ANY PERSON HAS HERETOFORE ALLOWED HIS INSURANCE TO LAPSE, OR HAS CANCELED OR REDUCED ALL OR ANY PART OF SUCH INSURANCE, WHILE SUFFERING FROM A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS NOT COLLECTED AND DIES OR HAS DIED, OR BECOMES OR HAS BECOME PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AND AT THE TIME OF SUCH DEATH OR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WAS OR IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION REMAINING UNCOLLECTED, THEN AND IN THAT EVENT SO MUCH OF HIS INSURANCE AS SAID UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION, COMPUTED IN ALL CASES AT THE RATE PROVIDED BY SECTION 302 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT AS AMENDED DECEMBER 24, 1919, WOULD PURCHASE IF APPLIED AS PREMIUMS WHEN DUE, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LAPSED, CANCELED, OR REDUCED; AND THE UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PAY TO SAID SOLDIER, OR HIS BENEFICIARIES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AMOUNT OF SAID INSURANCE LESS THE UNPAID PREMIUMS AND INTEREST THEREON AT 5 PERCENTUM PER ANNUM COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY IN INSTALLMENTS AS PROVIDED BY LAW: PROVIDED, THAT INSURANCE HEREAFTER REVIVED UNDER THIS SECTION AND SECTION 309 BY REASON OF PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY OR BY DEATH OF THE INSURED, SHALL BE PAID ONLY TO THE INSURED, HIS WIDOW, CHILD OR CHILDREN, DEPENDENT MOTHER OR FATHER, AND IN THE ORDER NAMED UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED BY THE INSURED DURING HIS LIFETIME OR BY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.

THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED WILL BE ANSWERED IN THE ORDER STATED:

(1) THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAS REPORTED THAT HARDIN NEAL COX WAS AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE. IN DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1926, 6 COMP. GEN. 223, WHEREIN WAS RECONSIDERED THE DECISION OF MAY 10, 1923, 2 COMP. GEN. 743, TO WHICH YOU REFER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED STATUTE, IT WAS STATED:

THE DECISION WAS CORRECT UNDER THE LAW THEN IN FORCE. SECTION 212 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 798, PROVIDES:

* * * "THAT COMPENSATION UNDER THIS TITLE SHALL NOT BE PAID WHILE THE PERSON IS IN RECEIPT OF ACTIVE-SERVICE OR RETIREMENT PAY, THIS PROVISO TO BE EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 6, 1917.' * * *

THE WORD "ACTIVE" WAS FIRST ADDED BY THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT OF JULY 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 623, BUT NOT MADE RETROACTIVE BY THAT STATUTE. THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, SUPRA, MADE THE PROVISION RETROACTIVE FROM APRIL 6, 1917. ADDITION OF THE WORD "ACTIVE" BEFORE THE WORD "SERVICE" HAS THE EFFECT OF REMOVING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION TO THOSE ENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1916, ON INACTIVE DUTY WHOSE RETAINER PAY WAS TERMED "SERVICE" PAY IN THE FORMER DECISION OF THIS OFFICE. THAT DECISION, IN SO FAR AS CONCERNS SUCH RESERVISTS, IS NO LONGER CONTROLLING.

ACCORDINGLY, UNCOLLECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION OTHERWISE PROPERLY PAYABLE, WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE PERIOD THE BENEFICIARY WAS AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE, MAY BE APPLIED AS PREMIUMS TOWARD REVIVING INSURANCE UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ENROLLED MEMBERS AND TRANSFERRED MEMBERS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE, AS SET FORTH IN SAID DECISION, SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 305 OF THE STATUTE. THE CITED OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT MAKE SUCH A DISTINCTION, BUT FROM THE USE OF THE TERM "NOMINAL SUM" USED THEREIN WHEN REFERRING TO THE AMOUNT OF RETAINER PAY RECEIVED BY THE RESERVISTS, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTENDED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION IN SAID DECISION ONLY TO ENROLLED MEMBERS WHO DO RECEIVE ONLY A NOMINAL SUM AS RETAINER PAY. TRANSFERRED MEMBERS RECEIVE A SUBSTANTIAL SUM AS RETAINER PAY, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN SAID DECISION AS REDUCED "RETIREMENT" PAY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 212 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT.

(2)THE PROVISO TO SECTION 305, ABOVE QUOTED, WHEREIN THE PHRASE "HEREAFTER REVIVED" FIRST APPEARS, WAS ADDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, SUPRA. THUS THE PHRASE REFERS TO THE DATE OF JULY 2, 1926. THE CHANGE IN SECTION 212 OF THE STATUTE WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION TO ENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE WHILE IN RECEIPT OF RETAINER PAY PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 1924, WAS MADE IN THE SAME STATUTE OF JULY 2, 1926. IT IS OBVIOUS, THEREFORE, THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO INSURANCE PROPERLY REVIVED UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE STATUTE UNTIL AFTER JULY 2, 1926, BY THE APPLICATION AS PREMIUMS OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION WHICH ACCRUED PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 1924, WHEN THE BENEFICIARY WAS AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE AND IN RECEIPT OF RETAINER PAY. THE INSURANCE IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, MUST BE CONSIDERED AS REVIVED AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF JULY 2, 1926, AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES NAMED IN THE STATUTE. THE CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY FROM HIS MOTHER TO HIS BROTHER BY THE INSURED IN HIS WILL MAY NOT BE RECOGNIZED FOR THE REASON THAT THE BROTHER IS NOT WITHIN THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS.

IN ARRIVING AT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION (2), CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DATED JUNE 22, 1927, A COPY OF WHICH YOU HAVE FORWARDED, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE WORDS "HEREAFTER REVIVED" AS USED IN SECTION 305 OF THE STATUTE, REFER ONLY TO INSURANCE WHICH MATURES BY DEATH OR HAPPENING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY AFTER JULY 2, 1926, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT INSURANCE IN CASES IN WHICH THE DEATH OR PERMANENT DISABILITY OCCURRED PRIOR TO SAID DATE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVISION IN THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, NAMING A RESTRICTED PERMANENT CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE ACTION BY THE BUREAU IN AWARDING, REINSTATING, OR REVIVING THE INSURANCE WAS NOT TAKEN UNTIL AFTER JULY 2, 1926. THE THEORY ON WHICH THE VIEWS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE BASED APPEARS TO BE THAT THE DEATH OR HAPPENING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY COMPLETES THE CHAIN OF EVENTS OR ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT MENTIONED IN THE STATUTE TO AUTHORIZE REVIVAL OF INSURANCE. THE WORD "REVIVED" IS A VERB, DENOTING ACTION, NOT A CONDITION AS CONSTRUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WHEN COUPLED WITH THE WORD "HEREAFTER" CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES SOME DEFINITE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE VETERANS' BUREAU AFTER JULY 2, 1926. THE ACTION IS THE DETERMINATION OR FINDING BY THE VETERANS' BUREAU THAT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE STATUTE HAVE BEEN MET, INCLUDING WHETHER THERE IS AVAILABLE UNCOLLECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR APPLICATION AS PREMIUMS, AND THE MAKING OF THE AWARD. THE CONGRESS UNQUESTIONABLY INTENDED THE WORD "REVIVED" IN THE SENSE OF REINSTATED, WHICH REQUIRES THE ACTION OF THE BUREAU TO BECOME EFFECTIVE. THERE APPEARS NO SOUND REASON FOR ATTRIBUTING TO THE WORD "REVIVED" ANY UNUSUAL MEANING CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED. PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE DO THE WORDS REQUIRE THE INSURANCE TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVIVED AFTER JULY 2, 1926, FOR THE REASON ABOVE STATED, VIZ, THAT IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE THERE EXISTED AUTHORITY OF LAW FOR APPLICATION AS INSURANCE PREMIUMS DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACCRUING TO A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 1924. BY THE AMENDMENT IN THE STATUTE OF JULY 2, 1926, MAKING SECTION 212 RETROACTIVELY EFFECTIVE, THE CONGRESS IN EFFECT RECOGNIZED THAT PRIOR THERETO NO DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO JUNE 7, 1924, WAS PROPERLY PAYABLE TO A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE FORCE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION AS INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

(3) IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT NO WIFE OR CHILD SURVIVED THE INSURED. IF NOT, THE DEPENDENT MOTHER MAY BE RECOGNIZED AS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE INSURANCE LAWFULLY REVIVED AS THE PERSON AUTHORIZED TO TAKE IN THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE FIXED IN THE STATUTE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER HER STATUS AS THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY.

(4) AND (5) THESE TWO QUESTIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE OF BENEFICIARIES OF REVIVED INSURANCE FIXED IN THE STATUTE, NAMING THE INSURED FIRST, RECOGNIZES THE MATURING OF INSURANCE BY THE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY. BUT THE SECTION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT TO THE DEATH BENEFICIARY OF INSTALLMENTS DUE AND PAYABLE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE INSURED WHICH WERE NOT RECEIVED BY HIM. UNDER ORDINARY INSURANCE ACCRUED UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE INSURED WOULD BE PAYABLE TO THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURED. SECTION 305 CLEARLY INTENDED SOME OTHER DISPOSITION OF SUCH INSTALLMENTS THAN IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE REGULAR WAR-RISK INSURANCE. SAID SECTION OF THE STATUTE DEALING WITH REVIVED INSURANCE WAS PURPOSELY MADE RESTRICTIVE. EVIDENTLY THE CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE GRATUITOUS NATURE OF REVIVED INSURANCE AND SOUGHT AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE TO LIMIT THE PAYMENTS THEREUNDER TO THE PERSONS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY DEPRIVED OF THE PROCEEDS AND THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THEREOF BY REASON OF THE LAPSE OF INSURANCE. BECAUSE OF THE GRATUITOUS NATURE OF REVIVED INSURANCE IT MAY NOT REASONABLY BE HELD THAT THERE IS ANY SURVIVAL OF RIGHT TO PAYMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANY OF THE RESTRICTED PERMITTED CLASS MENTIONED IN THE STATUTE, INCLUDING THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED. ACCORDINGLY, IF THE INSURED IS NOT ALIVE WHEN THE INSURANCE IS REVIVED SO AS TO RECEIVE INSTALLMENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE TO HIM IN HIS LIFETIME DURING A RATING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE RESTRICTIVE TERMS OF THE STATUTE TO PAY SUCH INSTALLMENTS EITHER TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED OR TO THE DEATH BENEFICIARY, BUT SUCH INSTALLMENTS SHOULD REMAIN UNPAID. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DECISION OF JULY 5, 1919, CITED BY YOU WHICH HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE QUESTIONS HEREIN SUBMITTED. THE DEPENDENT MOTHER WOULD BE ENTITLED ONLY TO SUCH INSTALLMENTS OF INSURANCE AS ACCRUE AFTER THE VETERAN'S DEATH.

I NOTE FROM YOUR LETTER OF JULY 29, 1927, THAT THE SUIT IN THE COX CASE HAS BEEN REVIVED AND IS NOW PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. IN VIEW OF THAT FACT, NO PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE OF ANY INSURANCE IN SAID CASE FOR THE PRESENT.