American General Life Insurance Company v. Jenson, 5:11-cv-05057

Amy and Patrick Jenson, married in 2003, had two minor children and separate finances; Amy named Patrick as beneficiary on his American General life policy and Amy paid premiums.
Patrick and Amy divorced by default in 2008, but continued to live together and function as a couple, with Patrick providing child support of $500/month and Amy continuing to pay Patrick’s policy premiums.
Amy changed her own policy beneficiary to her mother post-divorce, then later reinstated Patrick as beneficiary after Patrick's treatment for alcoholism; Patrick reaffirmed his wish that Amy remain the beneficiary.
Mr. Hugh Boyle, the Jensons’ financial advisor, told Patrick that Amy should remain as beneficiary; no new beneficiary designation forms were executed after the divorce.
Patrick died on January 2, 2011; there were no contingent beneficiaries and Amy was the sole claimant; American General interpleaded the policy proceeds to determine the rightful recipient under SDCL § 29A-2-804 and related contracts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does SDCL § 29A-2-804 create an absolute revocation or a rebuttable presumption?	Amy argues the statute is rebuttable,	Jenson contends the statute creates either an absolute rule or a rebuttable presumption depending on interpretation	Statute is a rebuttable presumption governed by burden of proof.
If rebuttable, what evidence suffices to rebut the presumption?	Amy must show decedent’s contrary intent by preponderance with admissible evidence	Amy’s evidence is insufficient or not properly corroborated	Patrick’s oral statements to Amy and the advisor, viewed with corroboration, can rebut the presumption; writing not strictly required.
Did Amy and Patrick have a qualifying contract exception to the revocation?	There was an oral contract: Amy would pay premiums in exchange for beneficiary status	No valid contract evidence under SDCL §§ 53-1-1 et seq.; statute requires writing for contracts	Yes, an oral contract satisfying the contract exception was proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Buchholz v. Storsve, 740 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 2007) (UPC § 2-804 is a rule of construction; rebuttal requires contrary intent in writing or evidence.)
Stillman v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n College Retirement Equities Fund, 343 F.3d 1311 (8th Cir. 2003) (supports view of rule-of-construction nature of UPC § 2-804 and rebuttal by contrary intent.)
Hanson v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (E.D. Wis. 2002) (presumption can be overcome by showing decedent’s contrary intent.)
Coughlin v. Board of Admin. of the Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys., /inferior Cal. Rptr. 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1984) (liberal construction to effect decedent’s intent; not to be overly rigid.)
Mearns v. Scharbach, 12 P.3d 1048 (Wash. 2000) (oral contract could satisfy contract-exception; must prove terms clearly.)
Lamparella v. Estate, 109 P.3d 959 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (requires writing to rebut presumption; unreliable inaction evidence insufficient alone.)
Whirlpool v. Ritter, 929 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1991) (addressed retroactivity; criticized; not controlling here.)