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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
