The New York Appellate Division finds that a disposition of insurance proceeds in a will does not change the beneficiary designation of the insurance policy even though the will specifically mentioned the policy.
Martha Hubbard purchased a life insurance policy that required a signed request in order to change a beneficiary. Ms. Hubbard changed her beneficiary twice, the final time making Benjamin Caswell the beneficiary. Years later she executed a will. The will mentioned the insurance policy by name and purported to distribute the insurance policy to several beneficiaries, including Mr. Caswell.
When Ms. Hubbard died, Mr. Caswell claimed he was the policy's sole beneficiary. The insurance company asked the court to determine the proper beneficiary, and Mr. Caswell asked the court for summary judgment. The court denied his motion, arguing that the decision turned on Ms. Hubbard's intent, which was a triable issue of fact. Mr. Caswell appealed.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reverses, holding that the "purported testamentary disposition of the insurance policy proceeds does not constitute 'substantial compliance' with the policy," so Mr. Caswell is the sole beneficiary. The court notes that while the will may have been evidence of Ms. Hubbard's intent, it was not an attempt to comply with the change-of-beneficiary procedure set forth in the policy.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
