296 So.3d 120
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Insured (Brad Beckham) had two contested life policies: a $250,000 MetLife policy and a $20,000 Bluebonnet/BCBS group policy, both naming his mother Rita as beneficiary.
- In October 2016 Brad began a MetLife change-of-beneficiary form: he completed page one and filled page two with Lindsey’s name but did not sign, date, allocate percentages, or submit the form before dying two days later.
- Brad orally told his employer’s secretary he needed to change the BCBS beneficiary but never submitted the required signed, written request.
- MetLife and BCBS paid death benefits to Rita; Lindsey submitted the incomplete MetLife form and sued Rita seeking a declaration that Lindsey was beneficiary and to restrain Rita from spending proceeds.
- The chancery court granted a preliminary injunction but later granted summary judgment for Rita, finding Brad did not substantially comply with the policies’ change requirements; Lindsey appealed.
- The court applied Mississippi’s substantial-compliance rule (Bell v. Parker) and relied on undisputed evidence, including Lindsey’s admission that Brad did not do everything reasonably possible to effect the changes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brad’s incomplete, unsigned MetLife form changed the beneficiary | Lindsey: the form plus Brad’s intent show a change; substantial compliance should apply | Rita: unsigned, unsubmitted form fails policy requirements; not substantial compliance | Court: No — unsigned/incomplete form insufficient; Brad did not do all he could to effect change |
| Whether Brad’s oral statement to employer changed the BCBS group-policy beneficiary | Lindsey: Brad’s expressed intent to employer shows effort to change beneficiary | Rita: oral remark without the required written, signed request is insufficient | Court: No — oral comment did not satisfy group-policy requirements; no substantial compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Parker, 563 So. 2d 594 (Miss. 1990) (adopts Mississippi "substantial compliance" rule for changing beneficiaries)
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Pulliam v. Alfa Ins. Co., 238 So. 3d 620 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (general rule: proceeds pay to named beneficiary absent proof of valid change)
- Cole ex rel. Cole v. Buckner, 819 So. 2d 527 (Miss. 2002) (requests for admission can apply legal standards to facts)