A divorce decree required ex-husband to maintain wife as 25% owner of his life insurance policy and forfeited to her the entire ownerhip interest if he stopped paying the premiums and she took over that burden. That’s what happened, as defendant’s agent knew. The agent’s knowledge was imputed to defendant. The insurance policy’s requirements for changing ownership do not control over the provisions of a contract (here, the divorce decree) of which the insurer has notice,. The question is whether, when it paid out the proceeds, the insurer had such knowledge or notice of the plaintiff’s ownership of the policy as to require recognition of her rights in it. Here, the insurer’s agent repeatedly assured the ex-wife that she was the sole beneficiary of the policy, so the insurer had reason to know of her interest and should not have paid out the proceeds to the ex-husband’s sons even if ex-husband had purported to change the beneficiaries in that manner.