MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rupe

Decision Date24 June 1958
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2030.
Citation163 F. Supp. 352
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
PartiesThe MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. Bette L. RUPE and Noah R. Rupe, Defendants.

V. K. Knapp, Winfield, W. Va., for defendant, Noah Rupe.

Harry N. Barton, and Milton S. Koslow, Charleston, W. Va., for defendant, Bette L. Rupe.

John S. Stump, Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiff, Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co.,

BEN MOORE, Chief Judge.

This is an interpleader action in which the plaintiff insurer deposited in court the proceeds due under the terms of a group insurance policy written on the employees of the Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Company, of Alexandria, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "employer," under which the life of one of its employees, Roscoe B. Rupe, hereinafter referred to as "insured," was insured for $3,000. The original beneficiary designated by insured was his wife, Bette L. Rupe. Domestic difficulties having developed between insured and his wife, they separated about January 1, 1957. Insured came to Putnam County, West Virginia, and established residence with a sister.

The original certificate of insurance issued to insured remained in the possession of his wife and was not available to him. On June 14, 1957, insured went to the office of Houston L. Mosley, agent for plaintiff, in Charleston, West Virginia, and executed a request for change of beneficiary from Bette L. Rupe to Noah R. Rupe, his father. The form used for the change was of the type used with respect to ordinary life policies. This form was received at the home office of plaintiff on June 19, 1957. An accompanying note from Mosley indicated that insured had lost his contract. The home office completed a form of the type used for change of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts and sent it to Mosley on June 28, 1957, together with a statement to be signed by insured regarding his lost certificate. Both of these forms were executed by insured on August 2, 1957. The change of beneficiary form bears the date "August 19, 1957," stamped on it by the employer. A rider was attached to the policy by plaintiff, indicating the change of beneficiary and giving August 2, 1957, as the effective date. Insured died on August 7, 1957.

The classification given to the employer's policy by plaintiff was that of a "self-administered group policy." The insurance contract was not directly between the insurance company and the insured individual, but between the insurance company and the employer as the policy holder. According to information furnished by plaintiff's home office, (received in evidence by agreement of the parties), a self-administered group policy is normally administered by the employer instead of the carrier, thus relieving the carrier of this burden, and making possible a lower rate to the employees.

In normal handling, the employer does the clerical work required in effecting a change of beneficiary.

The policy and certificate contain a provision relating to a change of beneficiary which reads:

"Any employee insured hereunder may change his beneficiary from time to time without the beneficiary's consent by filing a written notice of such change through the employer."

Since insured did not file a written notice of the desired change through the employer, Bette L. Rupe contends that the attempted change was ineffective and that she is entitled to the proceeds of the policy.

The sole issue involved here is whether or not insured complied with the terms of the contract of insurance in his attempt to effectuate a change of beneficiary.

Basically there are three requirements which are prerequisite to an effective change of beneficiary: (1) the right to change must be reserved to the insured; (2) there must be a voluntary intent to change; and (3) there must be some overt act or acts both to evidence such intent and to comply substantially with the prescribed method of change required by the policy.

The first two of these requirements are unquestionably met in this case. The policy reserved to the insured the right to change the beneficiary at any time, and his repeated attempts to do so through plaintiff's agent, Mosley, clearly indicate an unequivocal intent to change the beneficiary from his wife, Bette Rupe, to his father, Noah Rupe.

In dealing with the third requirement, it is noted that there is some division of authority with respect to the degree of compliance with the method and mechanics expressed in the policy, which must be shown in order to effect a change of beneficiary. Some decisions support the rule of strict compliance with all the terms of the policy, including the formal and purely ministerial acts to be performed by the insurer, before an effective change is recognized. See American National Insurance Co. v. Reid, D.C.W.D.Okl.1952, 108 F.Supp. 428; Ehlerman v. Bankers' Life Insurance Co., 1924, 199 Iowa 417, 200 N.W. 408; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Zgliczenski, 1922, 94 N.J.Eq. 300, 119 A. 29; Indiana National Life Insurance Co. v. McGinnis, 180 Ind. 9, 1913, 101 N.E. 289, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 192, See also Couch, Cyclopaedia of Insurance Law, Vol. 2, § 315-a (1929); Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, Vol. 2, § 943 (1941).

However the great majority of courts which have passed on this question take the more liberal view that substantial compliance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Miller v. American Home Assurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 16, 1967
    ...but was unable to fill out the required forms because they were unavailable at the local agent's office. In Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Rupe, 163 F.Supp. 352 (S.D.W.Va.1958), the insured twice sent requests to the insurer through its agent in an effort to change the original beneficia......
  • Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stephens, Civ. A. No. 80-90-NN.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • October 15, 1980
    ...provisions of the policy, equity will give effect to the intent of the insured." Id. at 76. See also Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Rupe, 163 F.Supp. 352, 354 (S.D. W.Va.1958) (substantial compliance with terms of policy is enough to effectuate a change of beneficiary). Because the ......
  • Luckey v. Luckey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 28, 1959
    ...Sheppard v. Crowley, 1911, 61 Fla. 735, 55 So. 841. Compare American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Reid, supra, with Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Rupe, D.C.S.D.W. Va.1958, 163 F.Supp. 352. ...

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