IDS Life Insurance v. Estate of Groshong

Noting ambiguity vagueness ing. COMPANY, IDS LIFE a INSURANCE probation orders created overkill Corporation; Minnesota and Investors Shepard, agreements, and then that which Services, Inc., Diversified a Delaware J., ago pertinent, a years wrote few is Plaintiffs, Corporation, reading from where observed Harriss, 612, v. 347 U.S. United States v. 812, 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. 989 GROSHONG, Timothy ESTATE P. OF warning’ notion ‘fair that “this notice or Deceased; Groshong: Joanne V. require reasonably ... is clear said Groshong, and Shane and guidelines prevent arbitrary and discrim- Amy Groshong, the minor children of enforcement____” inating Lopez, State Timothy P. and Grоsh 581, 586, (1976). 98 Idaho 570 P1.2d ong, Defendants. largest majori- today’s concern with and ty opinion disregard is its rather autocratic GROSHONG, V. respectable authority neighbor- from our Cross-Claimant-Respondent, ing western states and also the Ninth Cir- Appeals3 encompasses cuit Court majority Idaho and those other states. The GROSHONG, Timothy ESTATE P. OF upon attempt embarks no to refute the Deceased; Ruby Groshong; and Shane courts, point

reasoning those nor Amy Groshong, mi distinguishing features the cases be- nor children of P. fore those other courts the one from Ruby Groshong, Cross-Defendаnts- Appellants. presented to us. GROSHONG,

Joanne V. claimant, Counter COMPANY, LIFE IDS INSURANCE Corporation; and Investors Minnesota Inc., Services, Diversified a Delaware Corporation, Counter defendants. No. 16386.

Supreme Court Idaho. April 1, 1987. Rehearing May Denied 1987. 3. Of judges added interest are the number against decimating rehabilitation its altruistic deciding these cases. objectives. legitimate Consuelo-Gonzalez A concern admirable panel judges: heard Court, before of thirteen circuit why any giving member of this Chambers, Merrill, Koelsch, Browning, Duni prior benefit of decision law on the same sub way, Hufstedler, Trask, Ely, Wright, Choy, ject, is so loathe to even concede that there are Goodwin, Wallace and Sneed. The Montana good jurisdictions, legal minds in other case, Fogarty, justices. was decided seven already legal those minds have shown route promoting Final score: 16 to 4 favor of paved to take it well.

848

HUNTLEY, Justice. 1970, Timothy Groshong In September Ruby Groshong married in the state of Oregon. began Groshong Mr. Company. work with IDS Life Insurance IDS, As an Mr. en- employer tered into a contract with his plan, a career retirement distributor’s designated Ruby his wife as the ben- eficiary plan. under the Groshong family June of moved to Boise where Mr. con- August employed by tinued to be IDS. In 1982, he entered into another contract with manger’s IDS for a retirement agreement, again trust named his wife plans in- Both of the cluded death benefits. March, 1983, Timothy Shortly were divorced. after the

divorce, Timothy married his second 23,1983, after his Joanne. On June a week marriage, Groshong executed ‍​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍two IDS Mr. pres- forms Groshong and Max ence of Joanne employee of IDS. These forms named an benefic>ary Groshong as the sole plans. retirement Both Mr. under both Groshong testified at tri- Buffi and Joanne Groshong change they saw al that and leave them on his desk. 3, 1983, died July

On polo participating in a Valley after Sun beneficiary forms match. re- Groshong were not office, could home nor ceived at the IDS Groshong’s desk. on Mr. they be found legal Groshong claimed to be of these beneficiary to both that she Groshong claimed plans. Joanne beneficiary when made the new had been of benefi- filled out her husband ciary forms. provided plan documents

The retirement change of would that no unless the effective until and Goss, Risch, Insinger by the & Salla- forms were received D. David Boise, appellants. day, Hall, Boise, competing claims to the bene- Faced with Lojek & Lojek,

Donald fits, brought interpleading action IDS respondent.

849 possible court, all claimants. sit- United Services Insurance Co. v. ting Moss, (W.Dist.Va.1969); jury, F.Supp. without found that Mr. Grosh- ong Reeves, had intended to F.2d beneficiary Tomaneng (6th Cir.1950); States, plans under his these from for- Mitchell v. United wife, 758, Cir.1948). Ruby, present (5th mer to his 165 F.2d 760 The Joanne. concluded that Mr. prong rеquires discerning The first substantially had complied with change the intent of the insured to the requirements change the to the benefjciary Moss, beneficiary. supra, F.Supp. 303 plans. Accordingly, of his retirement the 76, signed at the insured had filled out and proceeds Joanne, court awarded the to less forms, change kept the but adjustment Ruby’s community inter- possession years the forms in his for two plans. Ruby Groshong appeals. est the forwarding without them the to insurance The issue before this is whether Court despite company, requests several from the ruling the trial cоurt erred in that the insurance that the forms for be effectively changed exe- warded. The court concluded that the in witnesses, of the forms cution before de- sured’s the retention of forms for two spite the fact the forms not were received years demonstrated that he had defi not by the compa- head office the insurance change. nitely determined to effectuate a ny, receipt under ‍​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍the 209, In Tomaneng, supra, 180 F.2d at terms of the documents. requested compa- the insured the insurance by majority The taken the view of сourts ny change to send him a change is that a can be ef form so that he could remove his wife’s complete compliance fected without replace policy name from it with the provisions policy regarding the no his sister’s name. The forms never were uphold tice and endorsement. The courts signed possession his and were retained in ing this accept compliance view at the time of his death. The court noted determining sufficient standard for changed the had that deceased benefi- change whether a valid has previous ciaries two occasions and un- Hence, been effected. required procedure. Woodman Accident and derstood the Puricelli, (Mo. sign Co. v. 64 669 S.W.2d the failure the to insured the forms Life App.1984); nearly Manhattan Insurance and his retention of the forms for Co. Life Barnes, (9th Cir.1972); 462 persuaded v. F.2d 629 four court that months the the Bank, insured not in his Witt Citizens National 440 definite determina- change tion to (Tex.Cir.App.1969); Republic S.W.2d 112 beneficiaries. Sackman,

National Insurance Co. v. Life 846, Gibson, supra, 459 at So.2d (6th Cir.1963); F.2d 756 Bowser v. 324 insured was familiar with insurance Bowser, 97, (1949); 202 Okl. 211 P.2d 517 business, signed still сom- retained Sutter, Sun Assurance Co. Life pleted fifteen months before his (1939). Wash.2d 95 P.2d 1014 and did not instruct those under his death philosophy behind this view is the in that direction to forward the forms to the insur- change right sured’s beneficiaries should ance The court ruled that the given preference be over procedural techni his insured had manifested intent calities. Sun Assurance Co. Sut beneficiary. change ter, (1939). 1 Wash. Mitchell, supra, 165 F.2d at The test to establish whether sub her insured’s widow testified that husband compliance has stantial been satisfied has government had and filled prongs: two There must report insurance form to benefi- (1) department. insured had determined to and sent it to the war ciaries (2) form, however, beneficiary, original the insured was lost everything government, had done best but the deceased’s wife had a ability change. Although government copy. to effect Gibson v. insurance Henderson, (Ala.1984); office had no record So.2d

ficiary, the nothing court viewed wife’s testimo- forms were never found. There is mother, ny, testimony the record deceased’s to indicate that Mr. regard- changed stated heard likely who she conversations his mind. It if ing beneficiary, copy changed he had his mind he would have government report telephoned secretary during the inter- vening days as sufficient evidence of the insured’s de- instructed destroy her to Therefore, change beneficiary. termination to the documents. the trial court justified finding court added further that insurance was the insured “[t]hese cases are difficult of must decision. Each had determined to light decided in the facts. its own prong The second of the is whether test strict a change The law is that of benefi- everything insured the hаd done to the best ciary writing prop- must be made in ability change. the A of to effect num- done, er form. this has Where not been of courts taken that a ber have the view to the courts will brush aside technicalities change effected beneficiary valid of give effect to intention of insured.” the the request the made a signed where insured at 165 F.2d 761. change of in the and was change possession of the of by have been the Several factors viewed forms, opportuni- but died before he had an providing courts as foundation to sufficient ty tо mail the documents to insurer. 5 the conclude that the insured determined had Couch, 2d, G. Couch on Insurance 28:76 change beneficiary. Among § to those the Ed.1984). (2d completeness factors is the the with which filled insured out the forms. In the instant Konagiskie, In 318 Pa. Skamoricus action, eyewitness the account of' have (Pa.1935), 177 A. the insured Groshong and Max an em- Joanne change a of form ployee agency, of the insurance that the by was witnessed completed signed. forms were company, and the insured took notary signature to the form a to have his Further, given the courts also have to, notary not the sworn but the was weight testimony to the of witnesses which left, died the fol- office. insured establish the insured intended to make lowing morning the form still while change of beneficiary. Again, a the testi- Compliance policy notary’s with the office. mony of Buffi and Max provisions required the insured to forward Timothy Groshong intended establish in- the forms beneficiary. name a to company, but the court held that surance the Where every ef- insured had made reasonable the not completed signed, has been Thereforе, change. the fort to effect a to company, forwarded the insurance the verdict favor of second time weighed courts have the amount of upheld. execution of the form and between (3d Stecker, 109 F.2d 281 Cir. Kit v. lengthy period If there is a date death. form, 1940), the filled out insured time execution of the forms between the it, oth- had someone it witnessed death, courts have concluded that de- beneficiary, than the but instead of er did thoughts insured second livering company, to it the insurance change. to June not intend make the On custody in the rеquired, put it policy 23, 1983, Groshong completed the of the insured’s lack In view on his and left forms and left them desk understanding that the form needed days does town two later. record insurer, court held returned to the be again re- reveal that Mr. ever everything could be he had done to his The record indicates turned office. po- its reasonably expected. support of Groshong’s customary for Mr. that it sition, the stated: secretary to take perform- mail “If there has been substantial forms of clients from desk and ance, claim the adverse claimant cannot them to the home office. require- failure follow a ministerial beneficiary requirements. ment, a regulation company, or justification position, its the court defense, where the has stated: payment waived the defense which it Although step delivering the final perhaps could if sued.” 109 used Change Beneficiary form to the em- F.2d at 284. ployer directing that it delivered occur, did not we find that there was In John Hancock Mutual Insur- compliance (7th terms of Douglass, ance Co. v. 156 F.2d 367 Cir.1946), policy, holding the insurance con- changed the insured the benefi- ciary general appropriate form, rule that and the form “[w]here positive insured takes a agent was tendered to the action which evi- insurer’s dences his obvious desire necessary. whatever action was however, beneficiary, ‍​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍ agent, adopt courts will such returned the form to the construction carrying insured’s mother as will assist in because the form was such signed with the insured’s intention.” John initials instead Hancock Mutual Douglass, the full Insurance first name. The died Co. 156 F.2d insured sud- (7th Cir.1946). denly before he was able to fill out F.2d at 327-28. a new form, but cоurt held that substantial Borgman Borgman, 420 N.E.2d compliance policy provisions with had been 1261 (Ind.App.1981), originally the insured change observed and a of beneficiary was named his the beneficiary, father as effected. subsequent marriage with a desired to

In Schwerdtfeger change the beneficiary American United to his wife. The Co., (6th agent Insurance 165 F.2d 928 Cir. insurance told the insured that he Life 1948), change the insured had his fill had beneficiary sister out a forms which change form, beneficiary naming change, his were to make but the daughters as the speak new beneficiaries. He insured stated that he wanted to then presence it in the effecting change. of the sister with his fiance before application and his nurse. The change marriage, After the insured’s he once met again was not agent delivered to the in with the insurance and asked beneficiary change. However, surance until after the insured’s weighed death. The agent proposed the testimony of insurance that the insured sister, buy the nurse and and concluded additional insurance. that The court stated although in, the form had not been may mailed finder fact have reason- “[t]he required by ably policy, insurance there found that Gene’s at- [the insured’s] compliance had been substantial give tention thus diverted from ex- legal effect to change pressed intended immediate benefi intention to considera- ciary. agent’s tion matters attendant proposals.” 420 N.E.2d at 1265. In Connecticut General Insurance Shortly meeting, after the insured (7th Cir.1982) Gulley, Co. v. 668 F.2d 325 attempts made several to contact the insur- Balsley cert. den. v. Gulley, 456 U.S. agent complete change ance 848, (1982), 102 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d ficiary change forms. рroperly change insured of ben- was not effectuated before the insured was form, eficiary but left the form with his killed in car accident. daughter forwarding instead of the form to change court found that while the intended company. Although poli- frustrated, he had done cy change called for the insured to file the expected reasonably all that could be forms with the insurance substantially complied with insurance office, although in- insured had never provisions change beneficiary. daughter structed his to mail the form for him, nor was there Employees’ Retirement indication that System State so, intended do Taylor, Ill.App.3d that she the court held that 87 Ill.Dec. compliance there had been substantial 476 N.E.2d 749 the insured had writ- respondent, no attor- Employees’ Retirement Costs to ten a letter to the Affirmed. ney fees awarded. A System change beneficiaries. written requesting did letter DONALDSON, SHEPARD, C.J., and comply system’s procedure; with the J., concur. however, the court looked at the insured’s BISTLINE, Justice, concurring. specially intent to beneficiaries and conclud- the insured constitut- ed that the actions оf by closely appeal This is best decided compliance to effect a ed substantial adhering Judge to the basis of Newhouse’s Further, recognized change. the court long It is not and te- written decision. dious, comprehension: be a combination of intent to nor difficult of there must positive court, trial, make the action to- finds and deter- after properly mines the deceased exe- effecting that end. wards forms, cuted the action, unique instant fact changing policies conclu- led the trial court to the situation Ruby Groshong to Grosh- from intended to sion that ong. opinion This court is of the that the beneficiary and took action change the evidence, stipulation par- and the pro- substantially complied with the an intention the deceased ties shows company. There cedures of the insurance change, plus acts of to effectuate this eye-witnesses were two carrying his intention. execution completed and beneficiary forms had been compliance is a suffi- Such signed. eye-witnesses, of those Max One This cient to transfer Buffi, agent emрloyed as an was help court cannot but note that the sec- Groshong had Mr. obviously object of the ond wife is the intent to- further manifested his beneficial bounty after the divorce and deceased’s Groshong by changing R., benefi- marriage. p. 111. ward Joanne policies in on two other insurance ciaries Record Being to find in the Clerk’s unable her favor. mentioned, and not stipulation which is exhibits, among only finding it addition, Groshong past had in the Mr. Reporter’s Tran- to the place to turn was upon secretary his to forward all relied Here, too, it is not listed as an script. the home change of forms to therein where it But it is found Exhibit. desk, leaving By those forms on office. all, record. First of read into the was correctly find that he the trial court could by Mr. to a a reference Goss there was secretary to forward the intended for his present- stipulation of facts which would be secretary not called as a was forms. court, Tr., turn, p. 1. there ed assumption. The to refute this witness counsel as to colloquy between Groshong, in Ruby record reveals that marked stipulation would be whether fashion, pos- unexplained came into some exhibit, suggestion filed. A an or as documents, including Mr. Grosh- session court, be filed with the made that ‍​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍it would Will, in desk at ong’s which were on or It not filed okayed. which the Therefore, even time of his death. however, clerk, would have or we with the though the insured failed to mail in, stipulated exhibits were it. Various to the insur- forms Groshong’s rested. Joanne case policy, required by the ance as reading Groshong’s opened with case confines of this fact hold that in the narrow portion of the aforemen- of a into evidence situation, justification is sufficient portion there was: stipulation, which tioned that a the trial court’s conclusion then an Mr. Max That beneficiary had been effected p. Timothy plaintiff witnessed compli- Groshong’s through Groshong Mr. execute designed approved by re- Inves- agreement’s procedural ance with pur- Services for tor’s Diversified quirements. poses changing the designation attorney person’s can- ben- to assess another Marketing IDS Corpora- eficiaries honesty, just judges dor and are called Manager’s tion Retirement Plаn and the upon to do. Investor’s Diversified Services Career hand, Bakes, J., dissent, On the other Distributor’s Retirement Plan. Buffi friend. refers Max as JoAnne’s signed by were These forms Mr. might speculate One also that he awas Groshong in day his office the 23rd concerned, to all merely friend knew

June, sig- 1983 and Max Buffi added his it, transpired, and what told and was be- at the request nature of Mr. lieved. signify order to Buffi had offi- cially Groshong’s signa- witnessed Mr. BAKES, Justice, dissenting: ture on each of two forms. case, beneficiary designat- each interpleader spouses In this two action ed was his clаimed under late status Groshong, V. JoAnne one of the defend- Timothy Groshong’s plans. ants herein. Mr. was not un- (the widow) decedent’s of any der the influence or intoxicants entirely her upon based claim an oral claim drugs give any at the time nor did shortly before his death the decedent signs executing these forms as a re- had executed a form Tr., sult pp. duress coercion. her favor. no 8-9. ficiary form was ever found. Grosh- stipulation standing That alone was a suffi- (the wife) ong former claimed to be cient Judge basis the decision which upon decedent’s bаsed an earli- stipulated Newhouse reached. Those are designation er written may facts. While it been inten- with filed the insurance com- Ruby’s stipulate tion of counsel to pany the deceased. The sole be- issue Max Buffi would have so testified had he fore this Court is whether there was sub- present, stipulation

been read into the competent stantial record qualified was not couched in such Groshong substantially complied language. time, At the same in the earlier requirements changing his contractual for colloquy Ruby Groshong counsеl for initial- beneficiary under named his IDS retire- ly had stated his intention to contact Buffi issue, plan. addressing ment this both during ensuing just justify week “and majority opinion court and my own conscience that he in fact did evidentiary apply proper have failed witness what he in said witnessed prior our by test as cases. There- stipulation of If facts. I’m satisfied with fore, I dissent. that, anything we won’t have further to do not, Lojek one-page with Mr. Buffi. If I’m I trial court issued a short and agreed are deposition that I could take his opinion, any which failed to include find- and we would submit that to the court for ings fact or of law. If the of conclusions the court’s review.” written of trial court had made conclusions been law it would have evident that under Only one conclusion can drawn. The plaintiff required to Idaho case law was stipulation which later was read into the convincing” prove by her claim “clear and record, supra, stipula- intended be a merely preponder- aby and not evidence tion of facts which would stand such long history of ance. There is a Idaho Ruby passed until judgment counsel convincing supporting clear and cases credibility of and unless counsel requirement in situations a incredible, where stipulation found him re- seeking a party is to overturn written doc- binding. may mained intact and It to some unusual, parol evidence. This my seem it ument Court’s but to mind was coun- 238, in display Lynch Cheney, sel’s decision Idaho commendable of reasonable (1977), 243, 380, 385 respect empir- for the is no 561 P.2d summarized witness. There ability requirement ical data which doubt on as follows: casts previously law, this ad “While Court has not of fact or have no conclusions question knowing dressed standard way applied what whether the court proof necessary prove a claim the clear convincing and evidence test dic- compromise we have judgment, oral of a past tated our cases. This situation convincing, a required a clear and require alone should at least a reversal and proof and satisfactory clear standard remand for the trial reconsideration analogous in circumstances such applying proper standard. See contract, modification oral of a writtеn Quick Crane, 727 P.2d Idaho Co., Development v. Lei Prairie Ltd. (1986). (1909) berg, 15 Idaho 98 P. 616 Although the num- majority has cited a (‘clear oral satisfactory’), and an support holding, in of cases of its all ber con ownership property claim of of real (which of the cited cases involve record, trary to title of v. Lava Ballard situation) the new or second Resort, Inc., Springs Hot 97 Idaho produced form was (1976) (‘clear, satisfactory trial. Production executed form at of an convincing’). directly only case provides direct evidence that the deсeased point which research combined fact, had, intended to execute the the Court and was able to dis counsel convincing and can be considered clear and Graybehl, is Howard 16 Colo. cover Thus, the cases evidence of intent. en App. 63 P. 953 a suit to majority opinion cited in the meet the clear money judgment in which the force a standard, convincing evidentiary par judgment debtor’s defense that question only at issue in those cases orally agreed compromise of ties had to a delivery or whether therе actual rejected by the claim was the Colorado has My an intent to deliver. research Appeals. Court of “ That court observed: up- locate failed to cases which thing, judgment very grave ‘A is a oral claim of held an equity, only jurisdic even which is the into no written form was introduced where having power judgments, tion to cancel allows, majority opinion evidence. The record, adjudication are solemn time, proof oral the first not be or set aside on it would vacated existing ben- ficiary to overturn an written testimony exceedingly parol unless it is ignores strong line of eficiary form and clear, satisfactory, convincing.’ 63 protects, case law which to a reason- Idaho P. at 955. written degree, sanctity of such able convinc- “The rationale for a ‘clear and documents. ing’ evidentiary in the val- standard rests places integrity of a ue the law on the contract between Therefore, writing. adopt the Timothy Groshong formal and his em- deceased Develop- proof of in in specifically provided standard the Prairie that ployer IDS and and hold ment Co. Ballard eases of the death of the Grosh- event an to cancel proof agreement that of oral remaining in the retire- ong the benefits by debt judgment must be established beneficiary paid would be ment convincing clear and evidence. writing in filed with IDS. designated and supports ruling of the record case, designa- In this Cheney Ross court that defendant file with IDS listed the former tion on to meet failed that burden.” Groshong, beneficiary. The Ruby plan contract further Lynch cases later than v. Che- Additional any change of be writ- that are M.K. apрlying the same rule ney ing company. delivered to the No writ- and Grover, Transport Idaho 612 by the of (1980); ten Estate P.2d 1192 Matter of Timothy Groshong pro- was ever deceased Robertson, Courtright v. 99 Idaho (the present Parkinson, (1978); 98 duced P.2d Collins v. wife). only attacking Ruby (1978). In this evidence Idaho (which findings Groshong’s on the case, claim is based since the trial made no court original insufficient, designation on evidence is the trial form reverse IDS) serving appeal file with the self testimo- court as a of law. As on matter ny Groshong, of Joanne Ballard, decedent's pro- was thе case in weeks, approximately wife of two and duced at trial here was not clear and con- deposition testimony of long her time vincing, therefore Court should this friend, Max both of whom testified reverse the trial court as a matter law. they that the decedent saw execute I that this should either believe matter alleged form. The (1) be to the trial reversed remanded supposedly application an “clear and court for desk, by Timothy Groshong left his convincing” pro- evidence test to facts ordinary there was evidence that trial, (2) duced at or Court should secretary course processed his would have merely do what was done in the Ballard and mailed it. case and reverse the trial as a matter processed form was never insufficiency law because delivered to the insurance evidence. majority statement opinion “Ruby Groshong, unexplained some

fashion, possession into doc- came

uments, will, including Groshong’s Mr.

which were on in his desk at ‍​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍the time death,” accurately

his does reflect

evidence in the record. Joanne (the decedent’s at the time his wife 736P.2d 1309 death) herself testified that after death his Vulk, Robert C. VULK and Lеona F. Groshong’s desk was cleaned out Plaintiffs-Appellants, boss, Dobson, Polly Eben Anderson, secretary. She then testified ultimately up those documents ended (un- HALEY, Joe John Does I and II in the Groshong, hands of she known) Representative Personal they got had no idea how there. That is Haley, Estate Bret Defendants-Re- record, the evidence in explains and it spondents. how the former wife ob- No. 16302. tained the documents. The additional statement in majority opinion “Mr. Supreme Court of Idaho. again never of- returned to his fice” supported by is not the record. He April 1987. did fishing trip not leave for his town approximately days suppos- after two

edly executed the new of benefi- form,

ciary during could time he gone destroyed to the office and

form. record,

Reviewing the it is clear

even if applied prop- the trial

er proof standard of as a matter of law

evidence was far short what should be

required to meet the “clear and convinc-

ing” test. This ruled in Bal- Court Russ Resort,

lard Springs & F.A.I. v. Lava Hot

Inc., Idaho P.2d 72

where the apply trial court failed to convincing”

“clear and evidence test and,

Court can evaluate if that

Case Details

Case Name: IDS Life Insurance v. Estate of Groshong

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 1, 1987

Citation: 736 P.2d 1301

Docket Number: 16386

Court Abbreviation: Idaho