Farley v. Prudential Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 27 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 561,561 |
| Citation | 468 S.W.2d 147 |
| Parties | Connie L. FARLEY, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Carter, Callender & Branton, Jonathan Sox, San Antonio, for appellant.
John R. Bryant, Dallas, for appellee, Burleson.
Prudential Insurance Company of America instituted this suit as an interpleader action against Connie L. Farley and Rhonda Lavon Riley Burleson seeking to require them to interplead and settle between themselves the rights to certain death benefits due under a policy of life insurance upon the life of John H. Farley, deceased. The policy was issued by Prudential to Lieutenant John H. Farley under the provisions of the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Act, 38 U.S.C., sec. 765, seq. Prudential tendered the face amount of the policy in the amount of $10,000.00 into the Registry of the Court and filed a motion for summary judgment praying for its discharge from liability. The dispute is between Connie L. Farley, appellant, and Rhonda Lavon Riley Burleson, appellee, over the proceeds of the policy.
The record shows that at the time Lieutenant Farley initially took out the policy, he was not married. He designated appellee, Rhonda Lavon Riley, a friend, as the beneficiary. This designation was made on October 10, 1967, and was the only formal designation of a beneficiary on file with the United States Army at the time of his death.
Appellant, Connie L. Farley, answered interpleader suit alleging that on December 2, 1968, subsequent to the time of the formal designation of Rhonda Lavon Riley as beneficiary, she and Lieutenant Farley were married in Hawaii while he was there on a recreational leave; that shortly thereafter Lieutenant Farley returned to the war zone in Viet Nam and was later killed in action. She further alleged that after his return to Viet Nam, he executed the necessary change of beneficiary forms designating her as the beneficiary of the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Policy and later wrote her a letter to that effect. She alleged that the Army had misplaced the change of beneficiary form, or that it had been otherwise lost or destroyed in the combat zone. In the alternative, she alleged that Lieutenant Farley did everything that was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to implement his intent to change the beneficiary of the policy to her and therefore she was entitled to the proceeds of the policy.
Appellee, Rhonda Lavon Riley Burleson, in reply to the interpleader action, alleged that since the Army records show that she was designated as the beneficiary, she was entitled to the proceeds. She moved for a summary judgment and attached a copy of the instrument executed by Lieutenant Farley designating her as the beneficiary. In reply to the motion for summary judgment, appellant, Connie L. Farley, filed her affidavit and attached a letter from Lieutenant Farley written after he returned to Viet Nam wherein he advised her that he had changed all of his allotments and had also made her the beneficiary of his insurance. She also offered the testimony of two officials in the United States Army stationed in Viet Nam. Jesse C. Morrisett, a Chief Warrant Officer in the U.S. Army stationed in Dong Tam, Viet Nam, who was in charge of the personnel files testified that when Lieutenant Farley returned from Hawaii, he came to his office and advised him that he had been married and wanted to change his allotments to his wife and also wanted to change the beneficiary on his Servicemen's Group Life Insurance policy to his wife; that he executed the necessary instruments changing his allotments but found that he did not have the necessary forms for changing the beneficiary on the insurance policy. He testified that he sent Lieutenant Farley to the offices of the Judge Advocate General in Dong Tam so that the necessary form could be prepared and never saw him again. Sergeant Edward Bill testified that during the period from November 1st to the 15th of December, 1968, he was Chief Legal Clerk in the office of the Judge Advocate General stationed in Dong Tam and during that time he remembered a lieutenant in the cavalry unit coming to his office and requesting assistance in changing the beneficiary on his insurance; that during the conversation the lieutenant stated that he had just returned from Hawaii where he had married and wanted to change the beneficiary on his insurance to his wife. He testified that after the form had been typed, the lieutenant executed the form in his presence and that he personally took it and turned it over to a captain in the offices of the Judge Advocate General. Nowhere in his testimony, however, does he state that the lieutenant in question was Lieutenant John H. Farley. When asked if he could remember anything about the appearance of this lieutenant he replied that he was 'a little light complected' and was 'anywhere from about five-nine to six feet and maybe a little taller.' Appellant offered evidence showing that Lieutenant John H. Farley was approximately 5 feet, 9 inches tall and was of light complexion. There is no evidence in the record showing the number of lieutenants stationed in the Dong Tam area at the time in question. It is undisputed that no written change of beneficiary form could be found in the offices of the United States Army after his death and that the beneficiary form designating Rhonda Lavon Riley was the only such instrument on file with the U.S. Army.
After a hearing, the trial court granted appellee a summary judgment awarding her the proceeds of the policy. The court also granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment discharging it from liability. Appellant Connie L. Farley duly perfected this appeal.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee because the evidence produced by her was sufficient to create three disputed fact issues, to-wit: (1) whether or not Lieutenant Farley actually executed the formal change of beneficiary form, (2) whether or not Lieutenant Farley intended a change of beneficiary from appellee to appellant, and (3) whether or not Lieutenant Farley had done all he reasonably could do under the circumstances to accomplish the change of beneficiary.
The Federal Statute relating to the designation of beneficiaries in Servicemen's Group Life Insurance policies is to be found at 38 U .S.C., sec. 770(a). That section provides:
'(a) Any amount of insurance under this subchapter in force on any member or former on the date of his death shall be paid, upon the establishment of a valid claim therefor, to the person or persons surviving at the date of his death, in the following order of precedence:
'First, to the beneficiary or beneficiaries as the member or former member may have designated by a writing received in the uniformed services prior to such death; * * *.'
Since this is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 166--A, T.R.C.P., we are required to review the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and accept as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farley v. Prudential Ins. Co.
...granted respondent Burleson's motion for summary judgment awarding her the proceeds of the policy. The court of civil appeals affirmed 468 S.W.2d 147. We reverse the judgments of both courts and remand the cause to the trial Lieutenant Farley, a Cavalry officer in the U.S. Army, took out th......