ERISA lawyers should read the opinion 2016, opinion from the Houston Division, Southern District of Texas. The case is styled, Margaret Myklebust v. McDermott, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff sued MetLife seeking a declaration that she is entitled to recover life insurance benefits attributable to the decedent, John Drayton, as his surviving spouse.
A Motion For Summary Judgment was filed and the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. In rendering its decision the court discussed the facts of the case.
What if someone is killed while that someone is committing a felony. Life insurance lawyers in the Dallas – Fort Worth area may be presented with that scenario. Here is how a 1997, Dallas Court of Appeals court looked at the situation. The case is styled, Grant v. Group Life & Health Insurance Company.
Grant used a pry bar to break into the residence of Stokes. When Grant entered the residence Stokes shot him five times, killing him. Grant’s wife sued Group Life to recover benefits under an accident policy for the death of her husband. Group Life moved for summary judgment on the basis that Grant died while committing a burglary and, therefore, his death was not accidental. The trial court granted the summary judgment and Grant appealed.
Because Grant’s death was not accidental, the trial court correctly granted Group Life’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Grant argues that because Group Life did not furnish her with a certificate of insurance, it is estopped from relying on undisclosed exclusions. Because the policy in question does not provide coverage for Grant’s death the policy’s exclusions are irrelevant.
Can the person causing the death of the insured still recover it they are the named beneficiary under the policy? This is a reasonable question to ask and this issue is discussed in the1969, Fort Worth Court of Appeals case styled, Giles v. Wiggins. Here is what it says.
This suit involves ascertainment of the rightful claimant to the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by National Life and Accident Insurance Company. The latter, as stakeholder, filed the suit and deposited $8,009.11 into the registry of the court for disposition by it to the claimants entitled thereto.
Vergia L. Giles, insured, was shot and killed by his wife, Evelyn Jean Wiggins, nee Evelyn Jean Giles, appellee and primary beneficiary of the policy.
Arlington life insurance lawyers need to be aware of rules of evidence when presenting a case. This is illustrated in a1973, Eastland Court of Appeals case styled, Cooley v. Cooley.
The life insurance compan brought an interpleader action to determine the proper beneficiary under a policy of life insurance issued on the life of Melvin K. Cooley. The defendants were Mrs. Doris Cooley, the named beneficiary, Mary Helen Cooley as guardian of the estates of three minors and Sedco, Inc. and Sedco Persia, Inc., assignees of a portion of the insurance policy. Mary Helen Cooley contended that Doris Cooley should be disqualified as a beneficiary on the grounds that Doris Cooley willfully brought about the death of the insured, Melvin K. Cooley, being convicted and sentenced for same in the country of Iran. On the jury’s finding that Mrs. Doris Cooley did not willfully bring about the death of Melvin K. Cooley, the trial court entered judgment for Doris Cooley. Mary Helen Cooley appeals.
It was established on the trial of the cause that Mary Helen Cooley married Melvin Cooley in 1956. He was the father of her three children for whom she was duly qualified as guardian. This marriage terminated in 1962 by divorce.
Life insurance attorneys in the Dallas Fort Worth area will have occasion to see something similar to this 1941, Waco Court of Appeals opinion. It is styled, National Life & Accident Ins. Co.,Inc., et al. v. Thompson.
This is a suit by Velma Brewer Thompson against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, Incorporated, for the recovery of $200 and statutory penalty alleged to be due plaintiff as beneficiary in a policy of insurance issued by defendant on the life of plaintiff’s husband, wherein a brother and sisters of insured filed their plea of intervention asserting right to recover proceeds due under the policy by reason of their allegation that plaintiff wilfully brought about the death of insured. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant and interveners appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Life insurance attorneys in Texas won’t run across this situation very often but if they do here is a case for guidance. The San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1964, dealing with the issue of whether or not a beneficiary is excluded from recovery of the life insurance benefits when the beneficiary killed the insured but was insane at the time they took the life of the insured. The case is styled Simon v. Dibble.
This suit presents the question of whether or not an insane husband who shoots and kills his wife, may receive the proceeds of insurance policies taken out by her with him as beneficiary, and whether or not he may inherit her share of the community property. On November 12, 1962, Orlando V. Dibble, Jr., while insane, shot and killed his wife, Sabina Julia Dibble. She left two insurance policies in which he was the beneficiary, and the insurance companies have paid into court the proceeds of these policies with the request that the court determine who should receive them. Article 21.23 of the Insurance Code, V.A.T.S., (today it is Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151) reads as follows:
The interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy or contract heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is the principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured. When such is the case, the nearest relative of the insured shall receive said insurance.
Arlington life insurance lawyers will not see this very often. Maybe never. But here it is. The Beaumont Court of Appeals issued this interesting 1975 opinion in this case styled, W.O. Hair v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co.
W. O. Hair, plaintiff below, sued Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company, alleging a cause of action by virtue of Section 1103.151 of the Insurance Code, for the death of his son, Rufus Hair, the insured, under the policies issued by the insurance companies above listed. The company urged a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court and from which the father seeks this review.
Rufus Hair, the insured, was shot to death by his wife Jonell, the designated beneficiary under the policies. The Texas Insurance Code provides:
Fort Worth life insurance lawyers know that the Texas Slayer Statute is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151. It says “A beneficiary of a life insurance policy or contract forfeits the beneficiary’s interest in the policy or contract if the beneficiary is a principle or an accomplice in wilfully fringing about the death of the insured.”
The self defense arguement related to this statute is discussed in a 1977, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, Bounds v. Caudle.
Dr. Bounds was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on his wife. He was later arrested and convicted of negligent homicide.
Dallas life insurance lawyers probably already know this case. It is a 1992, 5th Circuit opinion styled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Teddy White v Leslie Yohey.
Leslie Yohey appeals an adverse summary judgment dismissing his claim for life insurance proceeds against Metropolitan.
Terri Yohey was the named insured under a group life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA). At the time of her death she had not designated a beneficiary. Her widower, Leslie Yohey, was convicted of her murder.
Life insurance lawyers will be faced with the above question more times than would be imagined. Fortunately the question is answered in the Texas Insurance Code and in Federal law cases. One example is a case from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The opinion is styled, American National Insurance Company v. John Huckleberry et al.
American inter-pled policy benefits into the escrow of the court and named four defendants who have a potential claim to the proceeds. The primary beneficiary, John Huckleberry was convicted of the murder of the insured. The secondary beneficiary is a minor, Truett Jason Huckleberry, whom the policy designates as the secondary beneficiary, represented here by Stevens, his guardian and natural mother The court had to decide who was entitled to the insurance proceeds: the secondary beneficiary or the heirs at law of the insured?
Pursuant to Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151, The interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy or contract heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is the principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured.
Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog