# FILED Ap ril 23, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CO. ) ) Plai ntiff, ) ) VS. ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9611- CH-00504 ELIZABETH BARBER , in her ) individual capacity and as ) Special Admini stratrix

of the ) Davidson Chancery Estate of Raymond Joe Ba rber, ) No. 95-2713-I ) Defendant/Appellee, ) ) TORI L. HOLLING SWORTH, in her ) indi vidua l cap acit y, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )



### COURT OF APPE AL S OF TENNES SEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEALE D FRO M THE C HANC ERY C OURT O F DAVI DSON COUN TY AT NASHVILLE, TENN ESSEE THE HONORABLE IRVIN H. K ILCREASE, JR ., CHANCEL LOR

BRYAN HOWARD HOLTON, HOWARD & GOODMA N 424 Church Street Nashvil le, Tennessee 37219 PAUL S. DAVID SON CHARLES W. COOK, III STOKES & BARTHOLOM EW, P.A. 424 Church Street Nashvil le, Tennessee 37219 Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee ROBERT J. NOTESTIN E, III 104 W oodmont Boulevard Suite 115 Nashvil le, Tennessee 37205 Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

AFFIRMED AND REMAN DED

BEN H. CAN TRELL, JUDGE CONCUR: LEW IS, J. KOCH, J.- 2 - 

## O P I N I O N

This case invo lves the i nterpretation of a form designatin g the appellant as the beneficiary

on a life insur

ance policy . The trial court held that t he appellant took the policy

proceeds as th e executor of the decedent’s est ate and not as thesole benefic iary . We affirm.

I.

Ra ymond Joe Barber di ed on March 1, 1995 owning a $500,000 l if e insurance polic y. In the sixteen months prior t o this death, M r. Barber c hanged the beneficiarieson the policy four times. The final changes named “Tori L. Hollingsworth, Executor of Estate, 100%” as the primary

beneficiary

and “Estate” was nam ed as the c onti ngen t ben efi ciary.

Mr. Barber’s will named Tori L. Hollingsworth as the executor of his estate and divided his estate as follows: fifty

percent to Tori L. Hol lingsw orth, and twent y-five percente ach to his daughter, Elizabeth Barber, and his sister, Cecilia Peterson. After Mr. Barber’s death, th e insurance company got adverse claims from Tori Holling sworth and Elizabeth B arber and filed a bill of interpleader in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The chancellor h el d that the designation of beneficiary was unambiguousa nd refused to consi der any ex trinsic ev idence. He g ranted summary judgment to M s. Barber on her claim that the insurance proceeds belong ed to her father’s estate.- 3 - II.

We agree that the p roce eds o f th e ins uran ce po licy belong t o Mr. Barber’s estate -- w hether we consi der

the extri nsic evi dence or not. Look ing at the fourcorn ers o f th e ben efi ciary d esign atio n, th e dec ede nt’s inte nt to have th e policy proceeds paid to his estate seemed to be clearly established. Designati ng “Tori L. Hollingsworth, Executor of Estate, 100%” as

the primary beneficiary and his “estat e” as the conti ngent beneficiar y leaves little r

oom for speculation. This case is the reverse of Peeler v. Doster, 627 S.W.2d 936 (Tenn. 1982), where the Su preme Court said: When a beneficiary is named by name b ut w ords of relationship are then added which are false, it is generally held that the word s of relationship are merely matters of descri ption and that the speci fied relationshi p is not a condition that must be satisfied to enable the beneficiary to receive the proceeds of the insurance. See 5 Couch on Insurance§ 28:9 (2d ed. 1960). In this case, th e designation was accurate and desc ribed a status and not just a r

elationship.
If, however , we consi der the extr insic ev idence we ar e led to the sa me conclusion. As part of her motion fo r summary judgment Ms. Barber file d the deposition of MarkWeakly, the Allstate ag ent who w itnessed thebeneficiary change. He testified that M r. Barber ex pressed a cle ar intent to make the insurance proceeds payable to his estate. He wanted to make sure that his daughter wastaken care of

-- which he had a ccomp l ishe d by pr ovidi ng in h is will t hat s he wou ld ta ke twe nty-f ive percent of his estate.

On the other hand, M s. Holling sworth di d not offer any ad mis sible evidence to contradict Ms. W eakley’s t estimony. S he relied on an unsigned li st of instru ction s purportedly given to her by an agent of Mr. Barber’s company after his death and an unauthenticated financial statement bearingMr. Barber’s signat ure. In the fi nancial statement under the headingof “Insurance”the Allstate policy i s listedwit h Tor i Holling sworth s hown as the be neficiary w ithout any l imiting w ords or describing her as his executor.

The s e documents, however, are not admissible in th e form they were presented to the court. There is no ev idence of th eir authentici ty. See Ru le 901, Tenn. R. Evid. Therefore they cannot be consider ed for Rule 56 purpos es and they do not raise a genuine issue of m aterial fact. See Rule 56.05 , Tenn. R. Civ. Proc.

The judgmentof the court below is affirmed and thecause is remanded to the Chancery

Cou rt of Dav idson County for any further

proceedings

that may become necessary . Tax the costs on appeal to th e appellant.

_________________________________ BEN H. CAN TRELL, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

_______________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J UDGE