insurance company and the other potential claimants to about the policy agreed on a settlement agreement that ms levy had well that's a settlement agreement that doesn't mean that she's a beneficiary that just means they settled and she got a portion of the money no court held that she was a designated beneficiary as the benefits statute requires for purposes of giving her this particular death benefit number one your honor there was no need to have a court hearing and ms lee should not be panelized because her claim was so strong that the other claimants chose not to really give it a number two or perhaps the other claim it was just really nice and no longer had any contact with the guy i mean i got to tell you if it's some random ex boyfriend from twenty years ago left my name on a life insurance then it turns out he's got a wife and three kids down the road i turn the money over to them to which is the only right thing to do under the circumstances i mean you gotta sleep at night and be a good person so it doesn't mean that she had a legal right but maybe the other gal was sufficiently morally motivated to do the right thing but the insurance company acknowledged that ms lee had a colorable claim to the proceeds and in fact the fishery but that it would refuse to acknowledge constructive life insurance beneficiaries because it was not provided for under the act which is just false they p s o b determination letter from two thousand twelve states the agency stated that the insurance company quote chose to deem her as an eligible beneficiary for a policy by making those making that choice and deeming her a beneficiary under the policy they recognized share of collier's two thousand and eight and which in his own voice and his own face telling the people most important to him what he wanted to happen to all of his benefits upon if he was to die in the line of duty he doesn't needed that everything should go to cure only if there isn't a method of actually designating according to the statute this death while under the statute your that is an appropriate question your honor but there is also a legal weight to be given to the p s o b i'm sorry the san diego county which also determined that she was the proper p s to be clean it was a written record doesn't change the that he believed he had taken care of everything just to be clear that that isn't the only record right the only the record also includes a written designation of the other lady as the beneficiary correct but so right there is an oral video recording of him or oral out of his auditory or video what is it it's a record it is a video recording of him saying what he wanted but there's also a written document saying something that contradicts that correct to the written document that's correct your honor that written document  kept on reaffirming it there were opportunities clearly to change the beneficiaries name on his insurance policy and he kept on just reaffirming that the original designees in the one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven document your hon that where we're somewhat constrained this is a court of law volatile law and you know the the best we can do in terms of trying to break through what the policy actually says  designee is to look at these mental factors and those you know the exception number three is is d that mr collyer do take the best efforts possible in order to actually make efforts leading up to actually changing the beneficiary name of his insurance policy before he passed  away and there's nothing in this record that shows that he actually specifically took an action towards changing that insurance policy in some of the ways that we see and in a couple decisions where there at appendix two of two actually provides that the beneficiary maybe the names of the benefit she may be changed in writing including either the form signed by the insured or a verification by the policy holder or employer of an and just before he proposed to his future fiance mosley the timing of that video well is compelling and it was so compelling that the insurance company found that they would they refused to pay the claim to the name that was just listed on the beneficiary form the name that you can see he has had on this individual does nation form that going back to the statute and you're right we're constrained by the statute and from looking at the statute again comparing for insurance does me all that is required to be on file is of legal and valid hollandse the life insurance policy it does not talk about having to have a designation form and file and if congress had intended that to be the narrow read it certainly could have put that into the statute because it did so immediately prior in section four a well it could to in for be it says to the surviving individual designated by the public safety receive benefits under the most recent executed life insurance policy so has mislead been designated by the public safety officer to receive benefits under the most recently executed life insurance policy she has your honor she was designated she was do you think we should read a and as being limited to the executed designation of beneficiary form that goes along with the policy but be as water in allowing for other forms of designation to be included yes your honor and because that is how insurance law is interpreted in california which is what governs here so what's the best case that you have maybe a written statement or oral statement that's recorded where a person declares that they want their affairs to be handled a particular way and says they want this person to be designated in their life insurance policy that that trumps what's actually written in that life insurance policy and and the person makes no attempt to actually contact the life insurance company that that's good enough saunders that the insured wrote a letter stating that she wanted to change the beneficiary however when she received the forms from the insurance company that were required to change it she never completed them and never turn them in she received those f twice and she twice removed with failed to turn them into the insurance company and yet the insurance company honored that as a constructive designation and as i said the cases are back to the specific those cases the difference in those cases and  one of the problems with this you know analysis is that the keys are when there is a dispute and no one can agree on who is the designee here ms we had such a strong case that the insurance company and the other person had you know several one hundred thousand dollars at stake and at walked away from it for just four percent of that settlement agreement she walked away for essentially the cost of her time walk away from this potential pay out for her now maybe she was just a good person maybe she recognized that miss lee has as the insurance company recognized a colorable claim and  the other potential claimant with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake walked away from it for just four percent and our burden in this piece is merely to show that it's more likely than not that levy was a designated beneficiary under the life insurance policy and that's a as you know a fifty percent plus one chance you have a declaration under california law to some sort that would of this question of inheritance i think the most important point about the california law is that it does allow for constructive where you can say california law was on her side then this is this some mechanism for avoi i saying that the agency was bound to follow the california law insurance that's nation so there's the insurance policy provides for other do get tough cases you have to lean on the law because the law is fair the law is plain it's consistent it's applied equally to everybody and so as with that as the backdrop i'd like to just kind of walk through exactly what b j did now the way the statute  longer might have been straight down right and there is so ultimately we get to step four which is you know a proxy for the designation of the p s o we benefit when you can go to the designations under the life insurance policy and file it meaning you know who did the officer designate under that policy on file with his employer so that's the question for the court here today now we do have the rights to benefits did she receive she got the a worker's comp  fine because she was listed as a dependent she got the life insurance policy i think which was about fifty six million seventy thousand dollars she got his retirement benefits because she was expressly designated as a patient and fisher those benefits the terrified when you say she got the independent responsibility to implements regulations and it's statute determine how the federal benefit should be distributed so that's kind of the framework under which i think the b j was was functioning they went down to sub par four and they said ok so we have terminated in any way that person is that circumscribed to the extent of what the b j can do when they're analyzing it is it valid the insurance company through the settlement it has been deemed not to be valid because if it were valid the insurance company couldn't pay the money out to someone else and this we're thinking letter is important because i don't think the insurance company up made any legal pronouncement what they said is you have fourteen days to negotiate a settlement whatever you agree upon and i'm paraphrasing here it's in the record  whatever you agree upon will approve as long as we're not subject to double liability where is that letter we set the record where and just to be clear did you it finish your list of benefits that she got or whether other things that i'm not  well it says it appears the state and or human have a colorable claim to like percy so that's why they didn't pay out right now and that's that's what they knowledge you know there are two people who are making a claim we're not we're not going to make a determination as you know no that's not correct they didn't say we're not to make a determination that says you may have a colorable claim i assure you not all claims are colorable hope on the th paragraph they actually say the standard is an innocent stakeholder and is unable to make a determination of who is entitled to these life insurance it's yes but if it decided it was at least a colorable claim track they know that ultimately resolved it but i'm sure i'm sure they get a lot of claims that have no basis no and i'm sure that's right precisely but i think this is where the b j actually did consider the video and they did consider the way that you know the policy was distributed and that's where it becomes a substantial evidence that the terminations because they relied on the thrice affirmed designations on file with  life insurance executed designation of the and then b doesn't cease distinguishing language between a and b for two hundred and ten to eighty one of the statute and saying under b it isn't required that this be on the executed form it's a holistic approach looking at all the of us both some part means a part b use the same language most recently executed life insurance policy and then the other one supporter uses most recently executed as a nation of the beneficiary and both used the phrasing on file at the time of death so they think in both cases it's the document and only the document i think the extent hoary beyond the document is determined whether there's any reason to question whether the designations themselves are valid or invalid illegal revoked or terminated in some way saunders what if this were or the other case i can't remember that but where they were in the process of attempting to change the form and actually filled out the change just hadn't submitted it yet or does the b j b j have discretion in cases to deviate from the statutory language and say we're not going to use the one file executed beneficiary because there's this other one he was in the process of changing and while it's technically not one file we're not  recognizing they can actually look beyond the instrument itself but again that's prescribe regulation so for example let's use this case this is precisely what the b j did that they got the video the s s the video and they said well is there anything about this video that i can imagine they could say they were the case next to be writing but the video seems pretty clear that all benefits are supposed to go to miss lee that's a pretty general i statement it was my entire state and everything like that and so again it's a generalized utterance regarding you know the distribution of some part of his say at some prospective point in the future and doesn't even offer designation language per se and i think even under california law if you go there to stick with the earlier decision they did and that was a weight issue right i mean they the big knowledge that the video existed they analyzed the video if you look at the director's determination you see what the director did the director mention the statute referred to the prior to signal i think it's st a question of federal law and you can go into federal law applies this rule of inheritance it's not a rule of inheritance your honor it's a rule regarding the life insurance beneficiary designations and as prescribed know what how you resolve the dispute nothing has been paid it's not right it was intended that and circumstances such as this those aggrieved would be compensated i think you're saying because they argue nobody gets compensated i don't think nobody it's you have to be eligible i mean that's what the statute requires is that you have to be a statutorily doesn't need beneficiary under ten but not under this statute section tend to do this doctrine under the statute correct and  right there are the two listed doesn't need under the most recently executed life insurance policy on file that would be his mother and the girlfriend vision were reviewing  went through pivotal and analyzed it did correct so it actually did some way of the evidence under california state law and trying to understand why there this leaves could be classified under one of the pimentel exceptions correct correct ocean and iowa state law was being analyzed in this case it was it was your honor and i think that's so that's what the b j did it did analyze the question under state law regarding whether number one because it's a multi step process if there is no question under the statute in the statute is clear let's face it you don't have to kind of do this whole analysis you can go to the next part of the statute next order of the should be should be the parents but if there is a question how far you can go in the state law is prescribed by regulation that's twenty eight c f r thirty two point one three and what that says is check the validity check legality check whether it's been revoked or terminated in any way so if you give miss lead her best argument which is that this two thousand and eight video and that would be  file the designations on file revoked you should go to the next order of distribution of the statute which would be the parents because you could conceivably think of a situation where you get multiple claims and b j has to deal with these issues all the time where there are competing claimants and there could be  beneficiary waiting at the next and then the video transcript it seems to me lack the i would say the minimum it like the end dishes a formality that you would normally expect for or evocation because it's if it's clearly a jokey exchange between friends characterize it that way but in any event what he says precisely that i think is what's being relied on here is my under when he says can you explain to them what you understand you've done here with your own separate property now is his death benefit and part of his separate property does he have is that part of his property do you think i think mr lee does make that argument i don't think it's specific enough ok so then he goes separate and go to karen so i guess the b j said this do they say this isn't really an asset or savings or something like that that this this amounts to him giving her his real property but doesn't amount it's not doesn't have the formal markers of something where you were making a legal determination as to where things like this would go but the to the nd when their nd one was i think your point judge moore which is you know what does asset savings everything like that mean that's pretty generalized so it's kind of uncertainly implied within that statement and i think the rd part was the context of when the statement was made deputy collyer had just been parroted property from his deceased mother they were making a video regarding how that property should be death and this was kind of an add on statement in addition to how the property that he had just inherited should be distributed so it didn't really have the markers of of what would qualify as a formal designation under the most recently executed life insurance policy on file i think that extra point at that and this is again something that the b j recognized was this was then shelved away somewhere in a personal file and no attempt was made to deliver it to the insurance company to the employer it was never dropped in the mail and even under california law if you get to that part of the analysis under california law there's no case in both parties the knowledge there is no case that would suggest that would be enough we cited a number of cases where even under california law if you get the california courts have sometimes been you know been a little bit more equitable i think and try to stretch law little bit but even there you see that there are limits on how far that law can stretch saying more likely than not this  intended that his friend of twenty years ago would be the beneficiary rather than his current based upon right more likely than not that was his intention based upon that's where it does get tricky honor because you have thrice affirmed designations the most recent change it he didn't change it or i and my video and why concern is who i was a decision maker was the finder of fact the director did weigh the evidence and considered all the facts now here we don't have a legal pronouncement but he did analyze the evidence he did consider all the evidence that was before him he expressed mentions the video he expressly mentions the testimony and ultimately he finds that these thrice affirm wasn't unsympathetic to what the result would be because on the other side of this there is a real person that this will affect so he acknowledged you know we value deputy collyer sacrifice it looks like you had a close and committed relationship with the law prescribes and we can do that's what congress these reasons we are structurally request the quarter from the judgment what the d j is trying to do here is to unsupported by the act elevate form over substance and when i say it's unsupported by the act again let's go back to the act which ha two different prescriptions of what's to happen under four a versus four b and if to the extent that there as some equivocation that an executed designation form is somehow the same as an executed insurance policy beneficiary of a life insurance policy as doesn't need it as a beneficiary of such officer as of such date only if the designation is as of that date legal invalid now turning to the definition of a dozen nation on file so under four b there's a separate definition in the regulations that talks about what it means to be a designation on fiat which is required for for a under of the life insurance policy to also be on file with the valid policy it would have clearly said so and the implementing regulations could have made that definition clear it did not what is clear is simply must go to the designated and a fishery and here the designated beneficiary was agreed by the insurance company the other claimant who walked away for just four percent of the life insurance policy and who the constructive debt doesn't me of the policy and to the extent that there is some confusion that maybe ms stamped this accidental friend from years and years ago who was the nd beneficiary on an old doesn't nation form to the extent that there is concern that she has somehow now nine years later going to come out of the what works and seek some additional payment from the bureau there is even a provision in section four dollars b the provides for the benefit to be split in equal shares to the extent there are more than one individual doesn't need it on the policy so at the very least ms lee is doesn't need it as a beneficiary through the video well through the other information that we have and it was presented both to the insurance company and to the b j she was not just some random person this was his fiance they were scheduled to be married in three months they had the wedding planned their everything was planned they had only waited for that date because it was jeff colliers th birthday and he didn't make it because he was serving the citizens and died in line of duty so they should not be penalized because everyone agreed under the bureau's reading under the bro's interpretation that this form is the only thing that govern no parents that survived him either so this claim would would go unpaid but so so it would go so then it would go to the spouse even if there was a designated beneficiary of the life insurance even assuming that the parties had not agreed and everyone had not recognized his lease claim if there had if they had gone to an inner pleader and and expended resources and waited for a judgment this requirement that you know you can only give it to the person on this form who knows if the euro would even have honored the enter plea or judgment they're saying that the only thing that matters is this form and that's simply not supported by the act the regulations are the record in this case we