Allstate Life Ins. v. Barber ( 1997 )

ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CO. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. ) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9611-CH-00504
ELIZABETH BARBER, in her )
individual capacity and as )
Special Administratrix of the ) Davidson Chancery
Estate of Raymond Joe Barber, ) No. 95-2713-I
)
Defendant/Appellee, )
) FILED
TORI L. HOLLINGSWORTH, in her )
individual capacity, ) April 23, 1997
)
Defendant/Appellant. ) Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
THE HONORABLE IRVIN H. KILCREASE, JR., CHANCELLOR
BRYAN HOWARD
HOLTON, HOWARD & GOODMAN
424 Church Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
PAUL S. DAVIDSON
CHARLES W. COOK, III
STOKES & BARTHOLOMEW, P.A.
424 Church Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee
ROBERT J. NOTESTINE, III
104 Woodmont Boulevard
Suite 115
Nashville, Tennessee 37205
Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
LEWIS, J.
KOCH, J.
OPINION
This case involves the interpretation of a form designating the appellant
as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy. The trial court held that the appellant
took the policy proceeds as the executor of the decedent’s estate and not as the sole
beneficiary. We affirm.
I.
Raymond Joe Barber died on March 1, 1995 owning a $500,000 life
insurance policy. In the sixteen months prior to this death, Mr. Barber changed the
beneficiaries on the policy four times. The final changes named “Tori L.
Hollingsworth, Executor of Estate, 100%” as the primary beneficiary and “Estate” was
named as the contingent beneficiary.
Mr. Barber’s will named Tori L. Hollingsworth as the executor of his
estate and divided his estate as follows: fifty percent to Tori L. Hollingsworth, and
twenty-five percent each to his daughter, Elizabeth Barber, and his sister, Cecilia
Peterson. After Mr. Barber’s death, the insurance company got adverse claims from
Tori Hollingsworth and Elizabeth Barber and filed a bill of interpleader in the Chancery
Court of Davidson County. The chancellor held that the designation of beneficiary
was unambiguous and refused to consider any extrinsic evidence. He granted
summary judgment to Ms. Barber on her claim that the insurance proceeds belonged
to her father’s estate.
-2-
II.
We agree that the proceeds of the insurance policy belong to Mr.
Barber’s estate -- whether we consider the extrinsic evidence or not. Looking at the
four corners of the beneficiary designation, the decedent’s intent to have the policy
proceeds paid to his estate seemed to be clearly established. Designating “Tori L.
Hollingsworth, Executor of Estate, 100%” as the primary beneficiary and his “estate”
as the contingent beneficiary leaves little room for speculation. This case is the
reverse of Peeler v. Doster, 627 S.W.2d 936 (Tenn. 1982), where the Supreme Court
said:
When a beneficiary is named by name but words of
relationship are then added which are false, it is generally
held that the words of relationship are merely matters of
description and that the specified relationship is not a
condition that must be satisfied to enable the beneficiary
to receive the proceeds of the insurance.
See 5 Couch on Insurance § 28:9 (2d ed. 1960). In this case, the designation was
accurate and described a status and not just a relationship.
If, however, we consider the extrinsic evidence we are led to the same
conclusion. As part of her motion for summary judgment Ms. Barber filed the
deposition of Mark Weakly, the Allstate agent who witnessed the beneficiary change.
He testified that Mr. Barber expressed a clear intent to make the insurance proceeds
payable to his estate. He wanted to make sure that his daughter was taken care of --
which he had accomplished by providing in his will that she would take twenty-five
percent of his estate.
On the other hand, Ms. Hollingsworth did not offer any admissible
evidence to contradict Ms. Weakley’s testimony. She relied on an unsigned list of
instructions purportedly given to her by an agent of Mr. Barber’s company after his
death and an unauthenticated financial statement bearing Mr. Barber’s signature. In
the financial statement under the heading of “Insurance” the Allstate policy is listed
-3-
with Tori Hollingsworth shown as the beneficiary without any limiting words or
describing her as his executor.
These documents, however, are not admissible in the form they were
presented to the court. There is no evidence of their authenticity. See Rule 901,
Tenn. R. Evid. Therefore they cannot be considered for Rule 56 purposes and they
do not raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Rule 56.05, Tenn. R. Civ. Proc.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the cause is remanded
to the Chancery Court of Davidson County for any further proceedings that may
become necessary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.
_________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_______________________________
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
_______________________________
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE