Articles Posted in Life Insurance

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.

Life Insurance lawyers in Fort Worth need to read this Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion from 1969. The case is styled, Giles et al. v Wiggins et al. The court discusses the required evidence necessary to invoke the “slayer statute” which is today found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 110.151.

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 by his wife, Evelyn Jean Wiggins, nee Evelyn Jean Giles, and primary beneficiary of the policy, on September 4, 1966. He died as result thereof on September 14, 1966.

Arlington life insurance lawyers should read this 1918 case. It is still good law with good reasoning. It is from the Beaumont Court of Appeals and is styled, Murchison et al. v. Murchison et al. The case says:

It was alleged in the petition that G.R. Murchison was the father, and Dailey Murchison and Ross Murchison, Jr., were the brothers, and said Dora Faris the sister, of the said R.H. Murchison, who, it was alleged, died on the 14th of April, 1915; and it was further alleged that the said Margurite Murchison was the wife of said R.H. Murchison at the time of his death. It was further alleged that the said R.H. Murchison left no child or children surviving him. It was further alleged that the policy of insurance made the basis of the suit was issued by the Royal Indemnity Company and was in full force and effect at the time of the death of said R.H. Murchison. It was further shown by the petition of plaintiffs that said policy provided that upon the death of said R.H. Murchison, the proceeds thereof should be paid to the said Margurite Murchison as sole beneficiary. It was further alleged in the petition that the said R.H. Murchison met his death at the hands of his said wife, Margurite Murchison, who feloniously killed and murdered him with the intention and for the purpose of securing and obtaining the money which it was provided by the terms of said policy should be paid to her upon the death of said R.H. Murchison.

It was then alleged, substantially, that because of the fact that the said Margurite Murchison did feloniously kill and murder the said R.H. Murchison, she forfeited all right and interest that she otherwise might have had in and to the proceeds of said policy of insurance as the beneficiary named therein; and, further, it was substantially alleged that because of the fact that the said Margurite Murchison feloniously killed and murdered said R.H. Murchison, she was not only prevented from claiming and recovering from the Royal Indemnity Company the amount of money stipulated to be paid her as beneficiary in said policy, but also that she thereby forfeited any and all right and interest in and to the proceeds of said policy in the hands of said Royal Indemnity Company, and was not, in law, entitled to have said proceeds or any part thereof under the law of descent and distribution of this state, but that plaintiffs, as the father, brothers, and sister of said R.H. Murchison, by reason of such relationship to him, immediately upon the death of said R.H. Murchison became and were entitled to recover of said Royal Indemnity Company the proceeds of said policy still in its hands, as the heirs and next of kin of the said R.H. Murchison. The petition is quite lengthy, and for the purposes of this opinion it is entirely unnecessary to quote the same in full, and we think that the foregoing substantial statement of the material allegations will be sufficient for the disposition here.

Life insurance attorneys will someday see a situation where the beneficiary on a life insurance policy is also the person who killed the insured. Can they recover the life insurance benefits? The Texas Supreme Court addressed that situation in a 1949 case styled, Greer et al. v. Franklin Life Insurance Co.

This controversy relates to ordinary death benefits under an insurance policy issued by Franklin Life. The insured, James Greer, met his death from a knife welded by his wife Margaret, who is also the named beneficiary under the policy. The next of kin of James are asserting their rights under the policy, claiming that Margaret forfeited her rights in willfully bringing about the death of James. Today, this is the “Slayer Statute” found in the Texas Insurance Code, Section 1103.151.

Texas courts have recognized the injustice of allowing the beneficiary to recover on a policy when they have murdered the insured.

Here is something for life insurance lawyers to read. It is from the Texas Department of Insurance web-site.

Subchapter R. VIATICAL AND LIFE SETTLEMENTS 28 TAC §§3.1701 – 3.1717

The Commissioner of Insurance adopts amendments to §§3.1701 – 3.1703, 3.1705, 3.1707 – 3.1715, and new §§3.1704, 3.1706, 3.1716, and 3.1717 concerning regulation of viatical and life settlements. The sections are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the August 11, 2000 issue of the Texas Register (25 TexReg 7465).