Articles Posted in Life Insurance

Life Insurance and divorce have to be reconciled when an insured dies.  There are many issues that arise in these situations.  Here is a 2023 opinion from the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division that is a necessary read for any attorney handling life insurance cases wherein an insured dies after a divorce.  The opinion is styled, Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Holly L Moore and Jeffrey H. Simpson.

This is an interpleader action wherein Transamerica owed money after an insured died but was uncertain to whom the money should be paid.  The competing claimants are Moore and Simpson.

In February 2018, the Decedent purchased the policy at issue.  At the time that he purchased the Policy, the Decedent identified himself as single, and he was engaged to marry Moore later that fall.  The Decedent designated Moore, his then-fiancée, as the primary beneficiary of the Policy and Simpson, his father, as the Policy’s contingent beneficiary.

Life Insurance claims denial attorney are well aware of this 2023 opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  The opinion is styled, Arce v. American National Insurance Company.
In the opinion the Texas Supreme Court discussed “intent.”
American National argued that, because the Texas Legislature included the word “intent” in other provisions of the Texas Insurance Code, the absence of such a phrase in Section 705.051 indicated the Legislature’s intent Not to require “intent.”

Life Insurance claims denial attorney are well aware of this 2023 opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  The opinion is styled, Arce v. American National Insurance Company.
The Court discussed the plain text of Texas Insurance Code, Section 705.051 wherein it states:  “a misrepresentation in an application for a life, accident, or health insurance policy does not defeat recovery under the policy unless the misrepresentation:
(1)  is of a material fact; and

Life Insurance claims denial attorney are well aware of this 2023 opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  The opinion is styled, Arce v. American National Insurance Company.
On April 28, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court held that a life insurer seeking to avoid a life insurance policy via a Texas Insurance Code statutory misrepresentation defense must, just like under a common-law misrepresentation defense, prove the insured had “intent to deceive” when it made a misrepresentation in a life, accident, or health insurance application.
In making this ruling, the Texas Supreme Court rejected American’s argument that Texas Insurance Code, Section 705.051 did not require intent to deceive just because the statute was silent on whether intent to deceive was required.

Credit Life Insurance is the type of policy at issue in this 1979 opinion from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals.  The opinion is styled, Leach v. Eureka Life Insurance Company of America.
Tommy Leach took out a loan from a bank and as part of the loan agreement, Tommy was required to purchase credit life insurance.  The credit life insurance was for six months which began on March 13, 1977, and ended on September 13, 1977.  Tragically, Tommy was reported killed in an auto accident that is showed a time of death as 12:45 a.m., September 14, 1977, Central Daylight Time.
Tommy’s widow, Mary Leach, made a demand on Eureka to pay the loan balance to the bank.  Eureka refused payment, stating that the policy had terminated on September 13, 1977.  This lawsuit resulted and the trial resulted in a ruling in favor of Eureka.

Here is an unusual life insurance situation.  It is an opinion from 1992.  The opinion is from the Amarillo Court of Appeals and is styled, Ester Belle Medlin, Appellant v. Earnest G. Medlin, Floyd W. Medlin, Brenda E. Burford and Carolyn E. Medlin, Appellees.

The question to be determined in this matter is whether appellant Esther or appellees are entitled to one-half of insurance proceeds which had become payable due to the death of Jessie F. Medlin, Jr. (Jessie), the insured.  Appellant is the insured’s mother and appellees are the insured’s children by a previous marriage.  From a trial court judgment awarding those proceeds to appellees, appellant brings this appeal.  For reasons hereinafter expressed, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment awarding the proceeds in question to appellant.

The beneficiary clause of the insurance policy provides in pertinent part:

Life Insurance lawyers will eventually receive a phone call wherein the potential new client complains that the life insurance company quit making agreed upon payments for the life insurance from the potential client’s bank account.
Here is a 2023 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division, that discusses this issue.  The opinion is styled, Gloria Fric v. Allstate Life Insurance Company.
The opinion discusses several legal issues.  The focus here will be the issue related to the electronic funds transfer.

Life insurance lawyers and other attorneys dealing with insurance companies will often speak of the insurance company “duty of good faith and fair dealing.”  This issue is discussed in a 2023 opinion from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  The opinion is styled, Avery D. Ensley v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company.
The facts of the case can be read in the opinion.  It is the discussion related to the issue of the “duty of good faith and fair dealing” that is discussed here.
The Court addressed Plaintiffs bad faith claim.  Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendant breached its duty when it failed to adequately notify Plaintiff of premium changes, the Policy’s alleged depleted cash value, and the Policy’s pending lapse; (2) Defendant breached its duty by failing to proceed with automatic withdrawals until Plaintiff was notified of the deficit and given an opportunity to make the requisite payment; and (3) Defendant breached its duty when it failed to reinstate the Policy.

Life Insurance Attorney must read this 2023 opinion from the Texas Supreme Court.  The opinion is styled, American National Insurance Company v. Bertha Arce.
This is arguably the most important life insurance opinion in many years in Texas and centers around whether or not the insurer must prove intent to deceive when denying a claim for life insurance benefits.  The language of the Court in defining this issue is thus:
The primary issue before us is whether the common-law scienter requirement is repugnant to the plain language of section 705.051 of the Texas Insurance Code, which provides that “[a] misrepresentation in an application for a life, accident, or health insurance policy does not defeat recovery under the policy unless the misrepresentation: (1) is of a material fact; and (2) affects the risks assumed.”

Life insurance lawyers will tell you that the answer to the titled question is dependent on the wording of the insurance policy and the facts of the case.

This issue was discussed in the 1979, Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion styled, Leach v. Eureka Life Insurance Company of America.

This case involved a credit life insurance policy.  The deceased in Tommy Leach and the executrix of the estate is Mary Leach, the Plaintiff here.

Contact Information