Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Parker, 87-1790

Citation840 F.2d 6
Decision Date10 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-1790,87-1790
PartiesThe PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. James A. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant, and Marjorie L. Parker, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Sharon A. Knapp, Carr, Korein, Schlichter, Kunin & Montroy, East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.

Stanley W. Narusis, Narusis Law Office, Johnston City, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Before CUMMINGS, POSNER, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The issue in this interpleader action is whether James A. Parker is entitled to all or only one half of the proceeds of a $35,000 serviceman's group insurance policy on his son Bryan, who was killed in an accident while on active duty with the Navy. The issue turns on whether James Parker was "the beneficiary" that his son "designated by a writing received prior to death ... in the uniformed services." 38 U.S.C. Sec. 770(a). If not (and the district court thought not), the statute provides for the proceeds to go to the serviceman's parents. Implicitly this means half to each one, which often is of little significance but here is of great significance because Bryan's parents are divorced.

Bryan had signed and mailed to his father both a card designating James Parker as his beneficiary and a similar form with the same designation; both were witnessed by "Denise Ferguson 653" (or, more likely perhaps, "GS3"). These are official forms and presumably Miss Ferguson is a Navy personnel clerk, but either it has proved impossible to track her down or Mr. Parker's lawyer simply has failed to search for her; and a search of Navy records revealed no receipt of a beneficiary-designation form from Bryan Parker. There is little doubt that he wanted to designate his father as beneficiary; although it is always possible that he merely wanted his father to think he was his beneficiary, this conjecture implies a degree both of calculation and of knowledge of military-insurance law that seems implausible to impute to Bryan Parker. But it is not possible on this record to determine whether Bryan ever submitted the designation-of-beneficiary form to the Navy and therefore whether the Navy ever received it, as section 770 requires for the designation to be valid. See Prudential Ins. Co. v. Smith, 762 F.2d 476, 481-82 (5th Cir.1985).

The background of the statute (which has never been construed by this court) is discussed fully in Stribling v. United States, 419 F.2d 1350, 1353-55 (8th Cir.1969). The language concerning the receipt of a written designation of beneficiary comes from an earlier statute designed to overrule a case in which a beneficiary named in the deceased's holographic will had been allowed to recover the insurance proceeds even though the insured had neither designated the beneficiary to, nor filed the will with, his employer. It is so difficult to reconstruct a person's donative intentions after his death that rules relating to bequests have often been strictly construed, and apparently section 770 is in this tradition. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Manning, 568 F.2d 922, 926 (2d Cir.1977); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Warner, 328 F.Supp. 1128, 1130 (W.D.Va.1971).

Coomer v. United States, 471 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1973), cannot carry the day for James Parker. The witness to the designation of beneficiary, corresponding to Miss Ferguson in this case, was the person...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Fox Valley & Vicinity Const. Workers Pension Fund v. Brown, 88-2322
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1990
    ...to choose what to do with their wealth, but also produce some weird results. Still, we enforce them. E.g., Prudential Insurance Co. v. Parker, 840 F.2d 6 (7th Cir.1988). Although ERISA does not say "pay only the person whose name is on file", it does say that every plan must act "in accorda......
  • Calmon-Hess v. Harmer
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 15, 2012
    ...due to “the difficulty involved in reconstructing a serviceman's donative intentions after his death”); Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Parker, 840 F.2d 6, 7 (7th Cir.1988) (“It is so difficult to reconstruct a person's donative intentions after his death that rules relating to bequests have ......
  • Calmon-Hess v. Harmer
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 15, 2012
    ...due to "the difficulty involved in reconstructing a serviceman's donative intentions after his death"); Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Parker, 840 F.2d 6, 7 (7th Cir. 1988) ("It is so difficult to reconstruct a person's donative intentions after his death that rules relating to bequests have......
  • Lanier v. Traub, 90-5367
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 24, 1991
    ...recognizes the difficulty involved in reconstructing a serviceman's donative intentions after his death. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Parker, 840 F.2d 6, 7 (7th Cir.1988). To determine whether Gene Lanier is the Decedent's "parent" in the statutory distribution scheme of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 770(a), we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT