| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Kenney, Administrator of Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order Of Moose (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over life insurance benefits from a fraternal organization known as The Loyal Order Of Moose. Mr. Kenney was an active member and had paid dues to this society which provided life insurance for its members in case of death by natural causes or accident. After his accidental death, his estate administrator claimed that he should receive double indemnity under their policy because it was an accidental death but the order refused arguing that their constitution only allowed such payment if approved by two-thirds vote at a meeting following notice specifying intention to consider such action; no such meeting occurred before Mr.Kenney's demise. The court ruled in favor of The Loyal Order Of Moose stating that while they were obligated to pay regular benefits due after any member’s death, there was no obligation on them to pay additional amounts unless specifically agreed upon according to their rules and regulations.
In the dissenting opinion for Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation that a fraternal benefit society could not change its constitution to alter or eliminate benefits without individual member consent. He argued that when someone joins such an organization, they accept its existing rules and any future changes made in accordance with those rules. Therefore, if a society’s governing documents allow amendments by vote (as was true in this case), then members implicitly agree to potential alterations when joining. Furthermore, he contended that it is impractical and unrealistic to require unanimous agreement from all members before making any changes within large organizations like these societies; instead decisions should be based on majority rule as per democratic principles. Thus according to him, the defendant had acted lawfully under their constitutional rights while changing their death benefit policy.