Failure of Proposed Insured Stay Alive Until Policy Delivered Costs Fiance Almost $5 Million
Barry Zalma
Jun 20, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbYdZiau and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRxPxBft and at https://lnkd.in/gStMDxfn and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
On January 27, 2021, Dr. Travis Richardson completed an application for an individual life insurance policy with Pacific Life seeking $4,816,949.00 in coverage. Blevins was Dr. Richardson’s fiancé and was listed as the primary beneficiary of the policy. Lamar Breshears was the insurance agent for Pacific Life. Champion Agency (“Champion”) handled details. Dr. Richardson died unexpectedly before the policy was delivered and the insurer refused to pay.
In Pacific Life Insurance Company v. Katie Blevins, No. 3:21-CV-00143 JM, United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division (June 15, 2023} the USDC resolved the claim of the beneficiary.
FACTS
On February 1, 2021, Champion transmitted Dr. Richardson’s application to Pacific Life with the instructions to process the application and to mail the policy to Champion at its office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Pacific Life received Dr. Richardson’s application on February 2, 2021. On March 11, 2021, Pacific Life’s underwriting department approved Dr. Richardson for Policy and the initial monthly premium of $16,668.68 was paid. The same day that the policy was approved, Pacific Life uploaded an electronic copy of the policy to its Planned Performance Tracking portal (the “PPT portal”).
On March 12, 2021, Dr. Richardson emailed Breshears and asked him when the policy was active. Breshears responded the same day, stating, “Today. If you were to die today, the policy would pay out a death benefit.” Breshears was wrong because Dr. Richardson died unexpectedly on March 14, 2021.
The physical policy was received by Champion March 15, 2021. Pacific Life refunded the initial premium payment on March 25, 2021, taking the position that the policy was not “in force” at the time of Dr. Richardson’s death because it had not been “delivered” as required by the application and policy.
ANALYSIS
It was undisputed that delivery of the policy was a valid condition precedent to Blevins being entitled to receive payment under the policy. The application states that: “[c]overage will take effect when the Policy is delivered and the entire first premium is paid only if at that time each Proposed Insured is alive, and all answers in this Application are still true and complete.” (emphasis added.).
The policy, which incorporates the application, states that a Policy is in effect and provides a Death Benefit on the Insured on the date the Policy and associated riders become effective. The Policy Date for this policy was March 11, 2021 a date before Dr. Richardson died.
Pacific Life claimed that delivery of the policy required Dr. Richardson to have received and accepted a physical copy of the policy. It is undisputed that this did not happen, and Pacific Life sought summary judgment. The Court found that there were no material facts in dispute and agreed that the policy was not delivered.
The fact that the challenged terms are not defined does not make them vague and ambiguous.
Importantly, the USDC noted that the policy must be read as a whole, and effect given to all provisions. Construction that neutralizes any provision of a contract should never be adopted if the contract can be construed to give effect to all provisions. The policy in question unambiguously state that it is in force (defined as meaning in effect and paying death benefits), “subject to your acceptance of the delivered policy and payment of the initial premium.” (emphasis added).
While the term “policy date” clearly was confusing even to Breshears, it did not neutralize the delivery and acceptance requirements.
In addition to the delivery requirement, the application stated that coverage under the policy would take effect when it was delivered “only if at that time” the proposed insured was alive and “all answers in this Application are still true and complete.” Under Arkansas law, “if the policy was mailed [to the agent] unconditionally for the sole purpose of delivery to the assured,” the mailing of the policy from the insurance company to the agent would constitute constructive delivery. The burden of proof to show that the policy was unconditionally delivered to the agent for delivery to the insured is on the plaintiff.
Breshears testified that he understood delivery of the policy to mean “physically sending the policy to the client,” and that a “hundred percent of his policies have been delivered by paper.” Pacific Life has established that it physically mailed the policy to Champion pursuant to the instructions it received with the transmittal of Dr. Richardson’s application. Included with the mailed policy were a delivery receipt and an amendment to the application to correct minor inaccuracies. Blevins did not establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of constructive delivery of the policy.
Since at that time the outstanding delivery requirements had not been communicated to Breshears or Champion at that time, she argues that those delivery requirements were waived. However, that does not support her claim that the precondition of delivery itself was waived.
The Court has no doubt that Dr. Richardson, Breshears, and Blevins believed that Dr. Richardson was covered under the policy as of March 11, 2021. However, Pacific Life’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
People buy life insurance because they recognize that life is a disease from which all humans suffer. We all, eventually, die. Dr. Richardson wanted to protect his fiance and applied for a life insurance policy that he expected to have for many years only to die before the policy was delivered to him. Insurance policies must be read as a whole. In this case, the policy never came into effect because he was not alive when the policy was delivered. A sad result but on its face a correct decision.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims
Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
