Wheeler v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation
| Citation | 999 S.W.2d 279 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | ED74848 |
| Parties | This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Joyce Wheeler, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and General American Life Insurance Company, Defendants/Interpleaders, and Robert P. Jones and Sarah E. Jones, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Respondents. Case Number: 74848 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford
Counsel for Appellant: Christine F. Hart
Counsel for Respondent: Lawrence J. Altman
Opinion Summary: This case involves competing claims to life insurance policy and retirement plan benefits. The deceased insured's children claim that they are entitled to all of the benefits under two of insured's policies (and retirement plan which incorporates one policy's beneficiary designation) because, in his marriage dissolution settlement agreement, insured agreed to maintain insurance for his children as beneficiaries until they were emancipated. Plaintiff, insured's girlfriend at the time of his death, claims she is entitled to one-third of the benefits under a General American policy (and retirement plan which incorporated that policy's beneficiary designation) and two-thirds of the benefits under an Armed Forces policy because insured so designated her as a beneficiary after the dissolution of his marriage. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court awarded all of the benefits under both policies and the retirement plan to the children.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
Division Three holds: (1) The trial court did not err in awarding insured's children all of the benefits under his General American policy and retirement plan because the settlement agreement required that insured maintain the General American policy for the children as beneficiaries, which gave them a vested equitable interest in benefits existing and reasonably flowing from natural increases in that policy. As beneficiaries of that policy, the children are also beneficiaries of the retirement plan. (2) The trial court erred in awarding insured's children all of the benefits under his Armed Forces policy because, at the time insured added plaintiff to the policy as a two-thirds beneficiary, he added $100,000 in coverage to the existing $50,000 coverage, and the settlement agreement did not apply to this extraordinary post-dissolution purchase of increased coverage.
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. Simon, P.J. and Mooney, J., concur.
This case involves competing claims to life insurance policy and retirement plan benefits. The deceased insured's children claim that they are entitled to all of the benefits under two of insured's policies (and his retirement plan which incorporated one policy's beneficiary designation) because, in his marriage dissolution settlement agreement, insured agreed to maintain insurance for the children as beneficiaries until they were emancipated. Plaintiff, insured's girlfriend at the time of his death, claims she is entitled to one-third of the benefits under a General American policy (and the retirement plan which incorporated that policy's beneficiary designation) and two-thirds of the benefits under an Armed Forces policy because insured so designated her as a beneficiary after the dissolution of his marriage. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court awarded all of the benefits under both policies and the retirement plan to the children. Plaintiff appeals.
We affirm the judgment with respect to the General American policy and the retirement plan because the settlement agreement required that insured maintain the General American policy for the children as beneficiaries which gave them a vested equitable interest in benefits existing and reasonably flowing from natural increases in that policy. As beneficiaries of that policy, the children are also beneficiaries of the retirement plan. We reverse with respect to the Armed Forces policy because, at the time insured added plaintiff to the policy as a two-thirds beneficiary, he added $100,000 in coverage to the existing $50,000 coverage and the settlement agreement did not apply to this extraordinary post-dissolution purchase of increased coverage.
Prior to filing cross-motions for summary judgment, plaintiff, Joyce Wheeler, and defendants, Robert Jones and Sarah Jones (hereinafter together referred to as "the children"), stipulated to and/or admitted the facts which follow. James Jones (hereinafter "insured") and Constance Jones had two children, defendant Sarah Jones, born on May 2, 1977, and defendant Robert Jones, born on June 2, 1980. Insured and Constance Jones were divorced on September 15, 1993. In his Statement of Property filed with the dissolution court, insured stated that he was insured under the following four life insurance policies in the designated amounts:
McDonnell Douglas Furnished $62,000
Boston Mutual Life 8982 $10,000
Servicemen's Group Life insurance $200,000
Armed Forces Relief and Benefit 358452 $60,000 The dissolution decree adopted and incorporated the Jones's settlement agreement (hereinafter "the settlement agreement") which contained the following provision:
LIFE INSURANCE: It is agreed by and between the parties that [James Jones] shall maintain the following through McDonnell Douglas, Servicemen's Group Life, Armed Forces Relief and Benefit, Boston Mutual a [sic] policies of life insurance on his life with the parties['] minor children named as beneficiaries thereof or in trust for their health, education and welfare until such time as said children are emancipated. Upon a request of [Constance Jones] no more than once a year [James Jones] shall show proof of insurance.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, insured designated his children as equal beneficiaries under a General American group life insurance policy (hereinafter "General American policy") provided to him through his employer, McDonnell Douglas. The General American policy provided double indemnity in case of death by accident. Also pursuant to the settlement agreement, insured acquired a $50,000 life insurance policy issued by the Armed Forces Benefit Association (hereinafter "AFBA policy") and designated his children as equal beneficiaries. Correspondence between insured and AFBA attached to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment suggests that, at the time he purchased this new policy with AFBA, he terminated an existing AFBA "group term policy". All parties agree that the children are the proper beneficiaries of this $50,000 of AFBA insurance.1
In March, 1993 insured and plaintiff began dating. They later began living together and made plans to purchase a home. They signed a sales contract and, in June, 1996, took ownership of a home in St. Charles, Missouri as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. On July 26, 1996 insured purchased an additional $100,000 of life insurance on his then existing AFBA policy and added plaintiff as a two-thirds beneficiary under the policy. In July, 1996 insured added plaintiff as a one-third beneficiary under his General American policy.
Through his employment at McDonnell Douglas, insured had a savings plan, a Payroll Stock Ownership Plan (PAYSOP), and a retirement income plan. Insured designated Robert Jones, Sarah Jones, and plaintiff as one-third beneficiaries under his savings plan and PAYSOP, but he did not designate a beneficiary of his retirement income plan. McDonnell Douglas had a policy and practice that, in the absence of designated beneficiaries, whomever is determined to be the beneficiaries of the employee's basic life insurance policy would become beneficiaries of the retirement income plan. Insured's basic life insurance policy was the General American policy.
On August 31, 1996 insured died as the result of injuries he suffered in an automobile accident. AFBA paid the children each one-sixth of the policy benefits and paid plaintiff $99,900, representing two-thirds of the policy benefits. Plaintiff made claims on General American for payment of proceeds due to her as a one-third beneficiary of insured's General American policy and on McDonnell Douglas for payment of proceeds due to her as a one-third beneficiary of insured's retirement income plan, savings plan and PAYSOP. Both General American and McDonnell Douglas refused payment until the dispute created by the children's competing claims was judicially resolved.
On April 25, 1997 plaintiff filed an action against McDonnell Douglas, General American, and the children seeking a declaration of her right to receive one-third of the benefits under insured's General American policy, savings plan, PAYSOP and retirement income plan. The children answered and filed a two-count counterclaim against McDonnell Douglas, General American, and plaintiff. In Count I, they sought a declaration of their rights, obligations and liabilities under insured's life insurance policies and employee retirement benefits. In Count II, they requested that the court establish a constructive trust on the $99,900 and interest paid to plaintiff as a two-thirds beneficiary under insured's AFBA policy.
General American and McDonnell Douglas filed answers, cross-claims and counterclaims for interpleader. General American deposited $159,106 into the court registry for the beneficiaries of insured's General American policy. McDonnell Douglas deposited $62,929.47, representing the proceeds of the retirement income plan, $142,942.55, representing the proceeds of the savings plan, and $5,197.37, representing the proceeds of the PAYSOP, with the court registry for the beneficiaries of insured's retirement funds.
Plaintiff and the children each filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the children's motion and awarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crisp v. Mo. Sch. for The Deaf
... ... Co. , 638 S.W.3d 49, ... 61 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021) (quoting Wheeler v. McDonnell ... Douglas Corp. , 999 S.W.2d 279, 283 n.2 (Mo. App ... directors for actions taken on the corporation's behalf ... The most common formulation of "the business judgment ... ...