Saunders v. Stevers
| Decision Date | 25 October 1963 |
| Citation | 221 Cal.App.2d 539,34 Cal.Rptr. 579 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Barney R. P. SAUNDERS, by and through his guardian ad litem, Cecil A. Saunders, Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. Becky Jane STEVERS, by and through her guardian ad litem, Margaret Crawford Downes, Cross-Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent. Civ. 21066. |
Kenneth Eymann, Santa Rosa, for appellant.
Dal Poggetto & Chown, by Norman R. Chown, Sonoma, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The judgment was in favor of Becky Jane Stevers and against Barney R. P. Saunders in an interpleader action brought by the Union Central Life Insurance Company to determine the beneficiaries entitled to the proceeds of two life insurance policies issued by the company on the life of Nancy Saunders. Since the order denying appellant's motion for a new trial is not appealable (Rodriguez v. Barnett, 52 Cal.2d 154, 338 P.2d 907) that portion of the appeal will be dismissed.
The case was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. The facts were that Union Central Life Insurance Company issued two policies of insurance on the life of Nancy Bardosy, formerly Nancy Saunders. Each policy was in the amount of $5,000. At the time the policies were issued Nancy was married to Cecil Saunders, but he is not a party to this action and has in fact disclaimed any interest in the policies. Nancy first designated respondent Becky Jane Stevers, her daughter by a prior marriage, and appellant Barney Saunders, her son by her marriage to Cecil Saunders, as beneficiaries of each policy. Nancy and Cecil Saunders were divorced and Nancy thereafter married Al Bardosy. After Nancy's marriage to Bardosy she wrote the insurance company a letter stating: The insurance company returned its forms for change of beneficiary to Nancy and these were at least partially executed when they were inadvertently destroyed. On October 9, 1959 Nancy wrote to the company and again requested forms. The company replied on October 30, 1959 and enclosed a second set of forms for Nancy's execution. On November 4, 1959 Nancy executed a new will. It contained this paragraph: 'SIXTH: I give and bequeath to my son BARNEY ROBERT PEARSON SAUNDERS the sum of one dollar ($1.00) only feeling and knowing that he can and will be well provided for by his natural father.'
Nancy died on December 1, 1959. At the time of her death she had not returned the second set of change of beneficiary forms to the company.
Nancy's policies of insurance contained the following provision relating to change of beneficiary:
The sole question presented on appeal is whether the acts of Nancy effected a change of beneficiary under California law. We are of the opinion that Nancy's acts were sufficient to effect such a change and that the judgment must be affirmed.
As a general rule an insured has no absolute right to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. (Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 81 Cal.App. 546, 555, 254 P. 306.) Where, as here, the privilege of change is agreed upon by an express provision in the policy, the requirements therein stated must be observed, at least substantially, in order to effect a change of beneficiary. (See Cook v. Cook, 17 Cal.2d 639, 111 P.2d 322; Lewis v. Reed, 48 Cal.App. 742, 192 P. 335; Gayden v. Kirk, 207...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dooley v. James A. Dooley Associates Employees Retirement Plan
...v. Douglass (7th Cir.1946), 156 F.2d 367; Nye v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. (2d Cir.1945), 148 F.2d 509; Saunders v. Stevers (1963), 221 Cal.App.2d 539, 34 Cal.Rptr. 579; Rindlaub v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1962), 119 Ohio App. 77, 196 N.E.2d 602, aff'd (1963), 175 Ohio St. 303, 194......
-
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Brockett
...her son only one dollar; and died one month later without returning the change of beneficiary form. Saunders v. Stevers, 221 Cal.App.2d 539, 540-41, 34 Cal.Rptr. 579 (Cal.App. 1st Dist.1963). In discussing Saunders, the Ninth Circuit concluded, "The court's ruling appears to be based on the......
-
Li v. Dep't of Justice
...does not constitute waiver of strict compliance. Id. at 132–33. Yet, Ms. Li points out that Saunders v. Stevers , 221 Cal. App. 2d 539, 540, 34 Cal.Rptr. 579 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1963), appears to contravene Pimentel . In that case, the insured sent an informal letter to the insurance compa......
-
Bank of Am. Pension Plan v. McMath
...insurer that prevent a beneficiary change, rather than the insured's failures. See Pimentel, 57 P.2d at 131; Saunders v. Stevers, 34 Cal. Rptr. 579 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1963); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Withers, 127 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished disposition). In this case Mr. Mont......