Articles Posted in Life Insurance

Arlington insurance attorneys need to know when someone can collect on a life insurance policy as a beneficiary. A 1995, Eastland Court of Appeals opinion is worth reading. The style of the case is, Maris v. McCraw. Here is some information from the case.

The controlling issue in this circumstantial evidence case is whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the insured, a federal employee, filed before her death a signed beneficiary designation form with her employer. The policy provides that the life insurance proceeds are to be paid to the beneficiary designated by the employee in a signed and witnessed writing received before death “in the employing office.” If there is no designated beneficiary, the proceeds are to be paid to the widow or widower of the employee.

Donna Ann Maris died in 1987. Her personnel file did not contain a written beneficiary designation form signed by Maris designating any person as the beneficiary of her life insurance proceeds. Maris was survived by her husband, Jimmie Maris, and by her two children from a prior marriage, Tracy and Kristina. The children filed a declaratory judgment suit against the husband contending that they were entitled to the insurance proceeds because their mother signed and filed the appropriate form with the employing office designating them as beneficiaries and because the beneficiary designation form was subsequently lost. The husband counterclaimed asserting that he was entitled to the life insurance proceeds.

Texas life insurance attorneys need to have a basic working knowledge of how other states handle life insurance claims. Often times a Texas attorney will have a situation where the law of another state may apply to a life insurance claim. Here is a case to read. It is styled, Minnesota LIfe Ins. Co. v. Jones. It is a 2014, case from the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jones, who left no will, owned a life insurance policy that his employer had obtained for him from Minnesota Life. He did not designate a beneficiary, but the policy provided that the proceeds, which at his death amounted to nearly $307,000, would go first to a surviving spouse (there was none), second to any surviving child or children, third to any surviving parents, and fourth to Lenord’s estate.

An Illinois resident named Quincy Jones, claiming to be Lenord Jones’s son submitted a claim to the insurance company-as did another Illinois resident, Annie Moore, claiming to be Lenord’s daughter. The insurance company, being a nonresident of Illinois, was able to and did file an interpleader action in the federal court in Chicago. Fed.R.Civ.P. 22.

Life insurance attorneys in the Dallas Fort Worth area would want to know about a 1996, San Antonio Court of Appeals case holding an insurance company responsible for the conduct of one of it’s managers. The style of the case is, Mendoza v. American National Insurance Company. Here is the relevant information from the case.

Jerry Mendoza purchased a $25,000.00 life insurance policy from American National on August 1, 1991. The October premium was not paid. The policy provided for a thirty-one day grace period. On November 1, 1991, the last day of the grace period, American National’s district manager, Sitka, verbally agreed to extend the grace period until November 4, 1991. The policy, however, specifically provided that only American National’s president, vice-president or secretary had the authority to extend this time period. Jerry Mendoza died in an automobile accident on November 3, 1991. The premium was never paid. In a prior appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of American National on Mendoza’s breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith claims. The current appeal concerns the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on Mendoza’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Insurance Code, and DTPA violations.

This court held that in order to qualify as a consumer under the DTPA, a person must seek to acquire goods or services by purchase or lease and those goods or services must form the basis of the complaint. Lack of privity between plaintiff and defendant does not preclude a plaintiff from establishing consumer status. Section 541.060 provides standing to “any person” who has been injured by another’s engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance as declared in the Insurance Code or the DTPA.

Life insurance application – Insurance attorneys need to know about the law related to life insurance applications. A 1994, Texas Supreme Court case discusses one aspect of this. The style of the case is, Fredonia State Bank v. General Life Insurance Company.

The principal issue in this case is whether an insurance company may assert the defense of misrepresentation for statements made in an application not attached to a life insurance policy.

The insured died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. Prior to his death, he had purchased tow life insurance policies issued by General American. General American denied the beneficiary’s claims for benefits. Fredonia State Bank, an assignee of one of the two policies and executor of the insured’s estate, sued to collect the proceeds of the policy.

Attorneys handling life insurance claims in Texas might one day run across a situation where a company is attempting to collect life insurance benefits due to the death of an employee. An article in the New York Times discusses this issue. Here is what the article tells us.

Employees at The Orange County Register received an unsettling email from corporate headquarters this year. The owner of the newspaper, Freedom Communications, was writing to request workers’ consent to take out life insurance policies on them.

But the beneficiary of each policy would not be the survivors or estate of the insured employee, but the Freedom Communications pension plan. Reporters and editors resisted, uncomfortable with the notion that the company might profit from their deaths.

Dallas life insurance lawyers need to keep up with the law as it evolves throughout the United States. The Washington Examiner published an article on June 6, 2014, that is interesting reading. The title of the article is, First Circuit rules John Hancock Life Insurance doesn’t have to discover deaths, notify beneficiaries. Here is what the article tells us.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that John Hancock Life Insurance Company did not breach its contract in a class action lawsuit in regard to how it handed unclaimed insurance policy proceeds.

The appeals court ruled that Richard Feingold’s class action lawsuit against John Hancock Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, according to the May 27 opinion.