American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co v. Louis H Bitto IV
332203
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Decedent completed a Change of Beneficiary (COB) form; a handwritten note on the form reads "—COPY— mailed 9-18-15." The insurer received a faxed copy on October 9, 2015 (the day after the decedent died).
- Plaintiff insurer denied the beneficiary change, asserting the COB form was not received during the decedent’s lifetime and so did not take effect.
- Appellant (Joann Bush) moved for summary disposition, arguing the decedent mailed the COB form during his lifetime and thus substantially complied with the policy’s change-of-beneficiary requirements.
- Appellee (Louis H. Bitto IV) moved for summary disposition asserting no COB was submitted during the decedent’s life, so the insurer’s refusal was proper.
- The majority granted summary disposition for appellee; Judge O’Brien concurred in part but dissented in part, arguing a genuine factual dispute exists about whether the decedent mailed the COB and thus substantially complied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the COB took effect — was the form submitted during decedent’s lifetime? | Insurer: COB was not received until Oct 9, after death, so no valid change. | Bush: Handwritten note and other evidence show decedent mailed the COB on Sept 18, so it was submitted in his lifetime. | Court (majority): No genuine issue; COB not timely received; summary disposition for insurer. (O’Brien disagreed.) |
| Whether substantial compliance saves a late receipt | Insurer: Receipt timing controls; no compliance. | Bush: Even if insurer received copy Oct 9, decedent did all in his power (mailed it) — substantial compliance applies. | Majority rejected this as a basis for summary disposition for appellant; O’Brien says material fact exists whether substantial compliance occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gignac v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co., 321 Mich. 201 (1948) (policy change requirements and effect of noncompliance)
- Harris v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 330 Mich. 24 (1950) (substantial compliance doctrine: insured must do all in his power to effect change)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 96 Mich. App. 310 (1980) (application of substantial compliance to beneficiary changes)
- Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, Inc., 500 Mich. 1 (2016) (summary-disposition standard: view evidence in the light most favorable to nonmoving party)