Named Beneficiary Must be Paid Death Benefit
Barry Zalma
Dec 22, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g7V-HV_v and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g25Q8_3C and at https://lnkd.in/gt_VGTb6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4690 posts.
Della Lopez, Fred Lopez, Shella Gill, and Paul Imrie (collectively “Plaintiffs”) appealed from the trial court’s Order, arguing the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) and abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.
In Della Lopez, Fred Lopez, Shella Gill and Paul Imrie v. The Prudential Insurance Company Of America, No. COA23-427, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (December 19, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute of relatives of a decedent’s fight over life insurance benefits.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Following her husband’s death, Sherry elected to purchase a Policy from Prudential and continued to make the premium payments. To effectuate purchase of the Policy, Sherry completed and signed an Optional Group Universal Life Enrollment Form (the “Beneficiary Designation”) on 25 April 2007, naming her half-sister, Diana Imrie (“Diana”), as her sole beneficiary and Diana’s children as contingent beneficiaries.
After her husband’s death in 2007, Sherry moved in with Diana and her then-husband Paul Imrie (“Paul”) in North Carolina. Diana and Paul divorced in December 2014, and Sherry continued to live with Diana in North Carolina until March 2016.
Sherry believed Diana took the money because Diana was a joint signatory on the account and had access to the funds. Following this discovery, Sherry wanted to cancel the Policy with Prudential because she could no longer make the monthly payments, and “Diana was the sole beneficiary.”
The Prudential representative advised Della she would send a “Cancel Coverage Form” via email. Della did not complete and return this form. Without the return of this form, the cancellation of the Policy did not go into effect.
In 2016, Sherry attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on her heart medication. On 22 March 2016, Sherry died due to complications from her suicide attempt.
On 10 May 2016, Diana emailed Prudential with a copy of the Beneficiary Designation form Sherry had signed in April 2007. After Prudential received the Beneficiary Designation from Diana Prudential was asked to verify whether the Beneficiary Designation should be accepted by Prudential. Prudential paid Diana $54,000, the full amount of the Policy.
On 5 May 2017, after Paul and Della emailed Prudential alleging Diana was aware the Policy had been canceled and therefore fraudulently claimed she was the beneficiary of the purportedly canceled Policy. As a result of Paul and Della’s multiple emails and the transcription of the cancelation call, the matter was referred to Prudential’s Corporate Investigations Division (“CID”).
CID Investigator Peter Friscia (“Friscia”) was assigned to investigate any alleged fraud regarding the payment of the Policy to Diana and the cancelation call made by Della. Following interviews with Della, Paul, and Diana, Friscia concluded there was no evidence to substantiate any fraud by Diana, but Della’s impersonation of Sherry did constitute fraud.
Based on Friscia’s report, Prudential referred the case to the Georgia Department of Insurance (the “GDOI”) for further investigation. Prudential’s referral stated that Della was suspected of committing insurance fraud due to her impersonation of Sherry on the cancellation call. The referral further stated Paul “aided and abetted” Della in her attempt to cancel the Policy.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in Gaston County District Court requesting a declaratory judgment as to their rights under the Policy. In the Complaint, the Sibling-Plaintiffs alleged Prudential was required to pay out the Policy to the surviving siblings in equal shares, and the payout to Diana was wrongful because she was not the beneficiary on file.
On 21 December 2022, Judge Bell granted both of Prudential’s partial motions for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
First, the Sibling-Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred but there was no uncertainty as to the respective legal rights of the parties in the Policy. The evidence in the Record showed Diana submitted a Beneficiary Designation, signed by Sherry, noting Diana as the sole beneficiary of the Policy. Prudential confirmed the information in the Beneficiary Designation and concluded the claim by Diana was valid.
Moreover, the Sibling-Plaintiffs’ own evidence shows they likewise believed Diana was the beneficiary of the Policy.
The Sibling-Plaintiffs have failed because the evidence shows Diana was the beneficiary of the Policy and the judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Because the decedent had fallen out with her sister and wanted to cancel the policy to keep her from benefiting from the decedent’s death, she asked her other sister to cancel the policy. The sister failed to do so and the person the decedent did not want to receive the benefits of the policy got the money. The rest of the family tried to make the decedent’s wishes be honored but could not do so because of the incompetence of the attempt to cancel the policy. Relatives should never get involved in the life insurance held by others.
(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 to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; 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; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://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 to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
