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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
