Articles Posted in Life Insurance

Life insurance lawyers need to be know this 1990, opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  It is styled, Koral Industries v. Security-Connecticut Life Insurance Co.

It is not uncommon for a beneficiary of a life insurance policy to concede that misrepresentations regarding health were made on an application for life insurance.  What they will contest is that the insurance company should have known of the misrepresentations.

In the Koral case, Koral sought insurance on one of its key employees, Lewis Lindsey.  Lindsey did not disclose on the insurance application his medical history regarding treatment over the previous five years a history which included hospitalization in 1981, 1982, and 1983, and counseling and treatment for depression and excessive use of alcohol.  Further, he had been treated for mental or nervous disorders from 1976-78, and his physician had treated him for anxiety.

Life insurance lawyers will get calls from people who may or may not be entitled to life insurance proceeds after someone has died.  In these situations, that being situations where more than one person is making a claim for life insurance benefits, the insurance company will usually file a lawsuit against the claimants.  In the lawsuit the insurance company will inform the Court that a person has died, that the life insurance company is unsure who the correct person is to receive the life insurance proceeds, and then asks the Court to make the determination and to allow the insurance company to get out of the lawsuit while the people contesting for the insurance benefits remain in the lawsuit.  This is called an Inter-Pleader Action.

This was situation in a lawsuit in the U.S. Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, recently.  The case is styled, Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Aletha Burke Wade, Serbrina Wade, Lekisha Wade, and Frank Hollingsworth.

Kendrick Wade purchased a Life Policy in 2012 and designated his mother, Helen Wade, as beneficiary.  In 2014, Kendrick purchased an Accidental Death Policy designating his sisters, Lekisha and Serbrina, as co-equal beneficiaries.  Kendrick married Aletha Wade in 2015 and never amended the policies to name her as a beneficiary.  Kendrick was killed in December 2017.  Helen pre-deceased Kendric and the terms of the Life Policy made Kendrick’s estate the primary beneficiary.

There are lots of difficult cases insurance lawyers will see, but here is one that is hard to too.

Mark Humphreys, P.C., announces the settlement of a life insurance case wherein the beneficiaries claim for benefits was declined due to the assertion by the insurance company that the insured intentionally lied on his application for life insurance.

The insured, at the time of applying for life insurance, had been diagnosed with diabetes. The diabetes had become so severe that he had a partial leg amputation by the time the life insurance was purchased.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that has to be addressed too often.  An article was written in April 2019, in Forbes, that addresses this issue.  The title of the article is “Insurance Issues To Consider In A Divorce.”

Most of the time and fighting and arguing in divorce situations is directed toward emotional, financial, and child custody issues.  What can be lost in the mix is, what is going to happen regarding insurance policies.  Usually the law of the state where the divorce is taking place deals with all these issues.

This Blog deals with Texas and when it comes to divorces and the issues surrounding divorces, the Texas Family Code is the source of information for how Texas Courts address these issues and also, insurance policies.

With regards to life insurance policies, what if the insurance company denies a claim for benefits based on their assertion that a misrepresentation was made in the policy application?

This is covered by the Texas Insurance Code, Sections 705.001 to 705.005 and 705.101 to 705.105.  This is also addressed by a San Antonio Court of Appeals opinion from 1969.  The style of the San Antonio case is, The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Ignacio Torres et ux.

The facts in Torres are substantially undisputed.  Torres was an employee of Gonzaba, who had six employees.  Gonzaba was considering purchasing group life and health insurance for his employees and their families when he eventually purchased a policy through a new employee, Avalone, of Prudential.

Life insurance lawyers might know this law but most other people do not.  The law is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Sections 705.101 thru 705.105.

These Insurance Code sections require that an application for insurance be attached to the policy when the policy is sent to the applicant.

This issue was before the Texas Supreme Court in a 1994 opinion styled, Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Insurance.

The Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys, P.C. is pleased to announce the settlement of a life insurance denial case. Mark’s client was the daughter of a lady who had applied for a small life insurance policy about a year and a half before the mother’s death. Her death was within the two year look-back period allowed to life insurers in the State of Texas. This “look-back”allows an insurance company to investigate for misrepresentations made in a life insurance policy if the insured’s death occurred within two years of the application date.
The lady had severe mental issues but also she had significant health issues that were not disclosed in the insurance application. The plus for Mark’s client is that the insurance company agent who took the application information would have been aware of the health problems of the insured because the agent was present in the house of the lady and actually would have seen the insured’s oxygen machine and medications, yet these were not disclosed in answers to relevant questions on the application for life insurance. Mark’s argument was that the agent is who made the misrepresentations, not the mother. The agent had financial incentive to make the misrepresentations because the only way the agent received commissions for the sell of the life insurance policy was if the sell was made.

An often seen reason for denying a claim for life insurance benefits is the accusation by the insurance company that the insured committed suicide.

As is pointed out in the 1982, 14th District Court of Appeals opinion, Parchman v. United Liberty Life Ins. Co., life insurance policies typically exclude suicide as an assumed risk.  However, this exclusion is virtually always limited to a suicide that takes place within two years of the inception date of the policy.

In the Parchman case, the policy excluded suicide as an assumed risk for two years from the policy date and provided a reduced benefit of the return of all premiums paid if death resulted from suicide within that period.

The Law Office of Mark S. Humphreys, P.C. was able to get a settlement in a life insurance case recently that was not a normal situation.

Texas has a law referred to as the “Slayer Statute.”  This law which is found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151, states that if a person named as the beneficiary in a life insurance policy intentionally causes the death of the insured, then that beneficiary is excluded from recovery of the life insurance benefits.  If this happens then according to Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.152, the life insurance benefits then go to the next person entitled to the proceeds of the policy.

Mark represented the daughter of the insured.

The law in Texas regarding who is excluded from receiving life insurance benefits when the insured has been killed is clear.  Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151, says that the named beneficiary forfeits their rights in the life insurance proceeds if the beneficiary is a principal or accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured.

This issue is discussed in this 2019, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division opinion styled, Reliastar Life Insurance Company, P.T., a minor, and D.T., a minor v. Itani Milleni f/k/a Trang Vu.

This is an interpleader case filed by Reliastar, who insured the life of Tuyet Tran.  Reliastar needed this Court to decide whether Trang Vu, Tuyet’s husband and primary beneficiary, or P.T. and D.T., Tuyet’s children and contingent beneficiaries, are entitled to the proceeds.  This suit was instigated because Vu was suspected of murdering Tuyet, which if true, would disqualify him from receiving the insurance proceeds.  Vu was never prosecuted for the death of Tuyet, but a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for forfeiting the insurance proceeds.