Malloy v. Malloy
2012 UT App 294
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Husband had a FEGLI life insurance policy with Defendant designated as sole beneficiary (1989 election).
- Husband and Defendant divorced in 2004, but the designation was not changed or canceled.
- Husband later married Plaintiff in 2006; he died on September 1, 2009, without changing the beneficiary designation.
- FEGLI paid the $50,000 death benefit to Defendant under the beneficiary form.
- Plaintiff sued to recover proceeds, arguing retirement statute Utah Code § 75-2-804 revokes the designation upon divorce.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendant, relying on an insurance manual that stated divorce does not invalidate a former-spouse designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the FEGLI manual a governing instrument under § 75-2-804? | Manual lacks foundation and is not a governing instrument. | Manual incorporated by reference into the election form; it constitutes a governing instrument with express terms. | Yes; the manual is a governing instrument via incorporation and express terms. |
| Does divorce revoke a beneficiary designation when the governing instrument contains express terms otherwise? | Divorce automatically revokes revocable dispositions under § 75-2-804 unless express terms say otherwise. | Express terms in the governing instrument exempt the designation from automatic revocation due to divorce. | Divorce does not revoke the designation because the governing instrument expressly provides that divorce does not invalidate the designation. |
| Was the insurance manual properly authenticated and admissible as foundation for its governing-instrument status? | The manual lacks proper authentication. | As a government publication, it is self-authenticating; affidavit evidence established foundation. | No reversible error; the manual was authenticated and properly considered. |
| Did the district court properly treat the insurance manual as a governing instrument incorporated by reference into the election form? | Incorporation by reference is not shown; the manual cannot control the result. | Election form incorporated the FEGLI Handbook; the express terms favor Defendant. | Yes; the FEGLI Handbook/insurance manual was incorporated and governed the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gallup, 2011 UT App 422 (Utah Court of Appeals 2011) (broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence; standard of review)
- Daniels v. Gamma W. Brachytherapy, LLC, 2009 UT 66 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard; evidence admissibility)
- Peterson & Simpson v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 2009 UT 54 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (incorporation by reference; evidentiary treatment)
- Buchholz v. Storsve, 2007 SD 101 (South Dakota Supreme Court 2007) (interpretation of express terms regarding divorce and beneficiary designations)
- In re W.S., 939 P.2d 196 (Utah Court of Appeals 1997) (rule 803(8) hearsay exception for government-employment information)
- Maretta v. Hillman, 722 S.E.2d 32 (Virginia Supreme Court 2012) (federal preemption considerations in FEGLI-like scenarios)