Klein v. Klein
638 S.W.2d 94, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 4907 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract specifies a method for changing a beneficiary, that method must be substantially complied with for the change to be effective. A party cannot change a contractual beneficiary designation through a testamentary disposition, such as a will, that does not comply with the contract's requirements.
Facts:
- Joseph Klein was an agent for Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company under a contract that provided for post-death commissions.
- The contract required the company's consent for any transfer or disposition of these commissions.
- The contract allowed Klein to designate a death beneficiary via a specific form, which required company consent and recording at its Home Office to be effective.
- On April 9, 1979, a beneficiary designation form was executed, naming Joseph's son, Donald Klein, as the beneficiary of the commissions.
- On June 9, 1979, Joseph Klein executed a will that expressly bequeathed the same renewal commissions to his wife, Annabelle Klein.
- After Joseph Klein's death, the company began paying the commissions to his son, Donald.
Procedural Posture:
- After Joseph Klein died, Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company began paying renewal commissions to his son, Donald Klein.
- Annabelle Klein, the widow, filed suit against Donald Klein and the company in the trial court, claiming she was entitled to the commissions under the will.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Donald Klein and the company, ruling that the beneficiary designation controlled over the will.
- Annabelle Klein, as appellant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agent's will, which bequeaths renewal commissions to one person, effectively change a prior beneficiary designation made pursuant to the terms of the agency contract which named another person as beneficiary and specified a method for making changes?
Opinions:
Majority - Guittard, Chief Justice
No. An agent's will does not effectively change a beneficiary designation when the controlling contract specifies a different method for making such changes. The beneficiary designation form amended the agency agreement, creating a third-party beneficiary contract analogous to a life insurance policy. The contract defined the method by which the beneficiary could be changed—requiring a request by the agent and consent from the company. To effect a change, the agent must have at least substantially complied with the method prescribed in the contract. Joseph Klein's execution of a will, an instrument not addressed to the company and of which it would have no notice until his death, did not constitute substantial compliance with the contractual requirements. Therefore, at Joseph's death, the rights of the designated third-party beneficiary, Donald Klein, vested, and no interest in the commissions remained in Joseph's estate to be passed under the will.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that specific contractual provisions governing beneficiary changes override general testamentary dispositions. By analogizing the agency agreement's beneficiary clause to that of a life insurance policy, the court solidifies the requirement for substantial compliance with the contract's explicit procedures. This provides certainty for companies and third parties, insulating them from disputes arising from conflicting instructions in an estate plan. The ruling clarifies that a will is generally ineffective to alter beneficiary designations in non-probate assets like contracts or policies unless the contract itself permits such a method of change.
