Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Hayes, 15269.

Decision Date19 November 1963
Docket NumberNo. 15269.,15269.
PartiesAETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Mary Presley Hayes and Mary Van Worsley Droke, Defendants-Appellants, v. Betty J. HAYES, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Robert J. Warner, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appellants, Dearborn, Berry & Warner, Nashville, Tenn., on the brief.

Mac E. Robinson, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee, Patten & Brown, Little Rock, Ark., on the brief.

Before MILLER and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, District Judge.

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge.

On December 27, 1941, the Aetna Life Insurance Company issued a $5,000.00 policy of life insurance to Carlos L. Hayes, a lawyer and resident of Arkansas. The named beneficiaries were the insured's mother, Mary Presley Hayes, and the insured's fiancee at that time.

On June 20, 1950, the insured executed, upon a form provided by the company, a request for change of beneficiary, which continued his mother as one of the two beneficiaries, but changed the other beneficiary from his fiancee to his niece, Mary Van Worsley Droke.

In May 1955 the insured married the defendant, Betty Jo Womack Hayes. In January 1956 the insured wrote to his insurance agent and requested that the company provide him with a change of beneficiary form. The company replied that it was against its policy to distribute blank forms and requested that the insured supply it with the name of the proposed new beneficiary. In August 1956 the insured supplied the company with this information and the company forwarded to him a form for his signature with the blanks filled in, constituting a formal request to the company to change one of the beneficiaries from his niece, Mary Van Worsley Droke, to "Betty Jo Womack Hayes, wife of the insured." A covering letter advised the insured as follows:

"We enclose herewith change of beneficiary agreement forms in connection with your above numbered policy, which if satisfactory kindly sign both forms, have your signature witnessed and return the forms to us together with the policy, in order that the change of beneficiary may be completed."

On April 17, 1961, the insured died as a result of injuries received in an automobile accident on April 16, 1961.

The change of beneficiary form, above referred to, unsigned, was found by his widow in the insured's dresser drawer. The insurance policy was found in a trunk in his mother's home in Blytheville, Arkansas, which contained the insured's personal papers and old letters. The insured had been residing since his marriage in Benton, Arkansas.

The widow notified the insurance company that she had been designated as beneficiary of the policy and made claim for the proceeds. The insurance company filed this interpleader action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, making the named beneficiaries and the widow of the insured defendants.

The widow testified that the change of beneficiary form was not executed and submitted to the company due to the fact that the company had requested that he return the policy with the form and he was never able to get the policy; that the insured showed her the beneficiary change form and told her that as soon as he could get the policy and return it to the insurance company he would execute it; that he knew the policy was not lost; that he visited his mother about three times a year and she accompanied him every time; that each time he requested of his sister and mother that they get him the policy and that they said that it was not in their possession but that they would get it and mail it to him later; that on one occasion, Easter of 1960, he went through his trunk at his mother's home in the widow's presence and made a very thorough search for the policy, but it was not there; that at that time the insured's mother went to her trunk and brought some papers for him to look through to see if the policy was there; that the last time he made a request and had a discussion about the production of the policy was on April 15, 1961, two days before his death; and that he told his mother and sister he wanted to find the policy to have the beneficiary changed to his wife.

The insured's mother testified that she did not at any time have the policy; that the insured made repeated requests for the policy; that he looked through his trunk for it; and that she helped him look for it and went through her personal things.

The insured's niece testified that she never had the policy; that she visited Blytheville twice when the insured and his wife were there; that on one of these occasions he asked her if she still had the policy in her lock box and she told him that she didn't have it because she had never had the policy and he knew it; and that she found the policy in her uncle's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, Civ. A. No. 0:91-3765-19.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 26, 1993
    ...but he must have done everything that he thought and believed was required of him.) (applying Kentucky law); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 324 F.2d 759, 761 (6th Cir.1963) (An insured must do everything reasonably possible to effect a change in beneficiary.) (applying Arkansas 18. Having co......
  • In re Dyer
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • June 27, 2007
    ...Indus., Inc., 285 F.3d 522 (6th Cir.2002); BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir.2000); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 324 F.2d 759, 761 (6th Cir.1963). It is well established that equitable principles cannot override the clear dictates of a statute. U.S. v. Noland, ......
  • Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Sackmann
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 19, 1963
    ...27 Tenn. App. 294, 179 S.W.2d 937; Jaudon v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 279 F.2d 730, C.A. 6. See also opinion of Judge Miller in 324 F.2d 759, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, Mary Presley Hayes and Mary Van Worsley Droke, Defendants-Appellants v. Berry J. Hayes, Defendant-App......
  • In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 4, 2002
    ...rule is an equitable doctrine, BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir.2000), see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 324 F.2d 759, 761 (6th Cir.1963), so the bankruptcy court's decision to apply it must be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Waterman, 227 F.3d at 60......
  • 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