Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. v. Caswell
2006 NY Slip Op 2658, 31 A.D.3d 1, 813 N.Y.S.2d 385 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insured's specific testamentary disposition of life insurance proceeds in a will does not constitute substantial compliance with the policy's prescribed method for changing a beneficiary. Therefore, a beneficiary designation made according to the policy's terms controls over a conflicting bequest in a will.
Facts:
- In April 1985, Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company (Aetna) issued a life insurance policy to Martha L. Hubbard.
- The policy required that a beneficiary change be made by sending a signed request to Aetna for its written acceptance.
- On October 9, 1987, Hubbard submitted a signed request designating her son as primary beneficiary and defendant Bennie Caswell, Jr. as the contingent beneficiary, which Aetna accepted.
- Hubbard's son predeceased her, making Caswell the sole beneficiary under the 1987 designation.
- On June 16, 2003, Hubbard executed a will that specifically identified the Aetna policy by number.
- The will purported to bequeath portions of the policy's proceeds to various individuals and charities, leaving only a fraction to Caswell.
- Hubbard never submitted a signed request to Aetna to change the beneficiaries in accordance with her will.
- Hubbard died on May 17, 2004.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Martha Hubbard's death, both Bennie Caswell, Jr. and the executors of Hubbard's estate made conflicting claims to the insurance policy proceeds.
- Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York, as the insurer's administrator, commenced an interpleader action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (a state trial court), naming all claimants as defendants.
- In the trial court, Caswell moved for summary judgment, asking to be declared the sole beneficiary.
- The trial court denied Caswell's summary judgment motion, finding there was a triable issue of fact regarding the insured's intent.
- The trial court granted the insurer's cross-motion for permission to pay the policy proceeds into court and be discharged from further liability.
- Caswell, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his summary judgment motion to this intermediate appellate court.
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 insured's will, which specifically identifies a life insurance policy and purports to bequeath its proceeds, effectively change the policy's beneficiary when the will does not comply with the change-of-beneficiary procedure specified in the policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, J.
No. A specific testamentary disposition of insurance policy proceeds does not constitute substantial compliance with a policy's prescribed procedure for changing a beneficiary and cannot override a prior designation made in accordance with the policy. The controlling consideration is whether there has been substantial compliance with the policy's terms, which requires an act designed to make the change, not merely an expression of intent. While an insurer's filing of an interpleader action waives the need for strict compliance, it does not eliminate the requirement of substantial compliance. Here, the insured's execution of a will was not an attempt to comply with the policy's simple procedure of sending a signed request, a procedure she had used successfully in the past. Adhering to the policy's requirements, as reinforced by the precedent in McCarthy v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., promotes certainty for insurers and prevents delays in payment of claims.
Concurring - McGuire, J.
Yes, I agree that the will does not change the beneficiary and that the case is controlled by McCarthy v Aetna Life Ins. Co. The concurrence is written to expand upon the issue of awarding costs and attorneys' fees to the insurer in an interpleader action. An award of fees under CPLR 1006(f) is discretionary and should not be granted as a matter of course. Courts should consider whether resolving the claim is part of the insurer's ordinary cost of doing business. Factors such as whether the insurer was dilatory or whether the competing claim was weak should inform the court's decision on whether, and how much, to award in fees. Just because an insurer properly brings an interpleader action does not automatically entitle it to have its legal fees paid from the policy proceeds.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and extends the rule established in McCarthy, clarifying that even a specific testamentary bequest, not just a general one, fails the substantial compliance test for changing a life insurance beneficiary. It solidifies the principle that a life insurance policy is a non-probate asset governed strictly by its own contractual terms, separate from the decedent's will. By prioritizing the formal beneficiary designation over testamentary intent, the ruling provides certainty for insurance companies and beneficiaries, reducing litigation and ensuring prompt payment of proceeds according to the contract.
Unlock the full brief for Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. v. Caswell