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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
