Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
This interpleader action was filed by MFA Life Insurance Company to determine who is entitled to the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of William Kyle. Appellant filed a motion to submit the appeal on briefs without oral argument. This motion is granted.
Two parties claim the proceeds of the insurance policy: Eddie Mae Kyle, decedent’s wife of forty-four days at the time of his death, and Earleaer Kyle, decedent’s wife of five and one-half years at the time of their divorce in 1977.
District Judge Robert M. Krupansky summarized the undisputed facts as follows:
On May 28, 1972, William Kyle and Earleaer were married in Augusta, Arkansas and lived together as husband and wife in Patterson, Arkansas .... Thereafter, on December 20, 1977, the Chancery Court of Woodruff County, Arkansas, entered a Decree of Divorce dissolving their marriage .... In said Decree, the Chancery Court also approved and incorporated a child custody and property settlement agreement executed by and between William Kyle and Earleaer. Said property settlement agreement made no reference to MFA life insurance policy No. L-135307, which had been issued previously to William Kyle, as insured, effective September 27, 1977, and under which Earleaer was the named beneficiary.
Subsequently, at an undisclosed date, William Kyle moved to Cleveland, Ohio, where he married Eddie Mae on January 21, 1978, and where he died on March 5, 1978. William Kyle died intestate and without giving written notice to MFA regarding a change of beneficiary.
Judge Krupansky held that since the property settlement between William Kyle and Earleaer Kyle was executed in Arkansas by then residents of Arkansas, Ohio conflict of law rules required that the district court look to Arkansas law to determine what effect, if any, this agreement might have on the rights of Earleaer Kyle to take the proceeds of the life insurance policy. As authority for this proposition, the court cited Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Cohen, 179 U.S. 262, 21 S.Ct. 106, 45 L.Ed. 181 (1900); Sheerin v. Steele, 240 F.2d 797 (6th Cir. 1957); Alropa Corp. v. Kirschwehm, 138 Ohio St. 30, 33 N.E.2d 655 (1941); McCormick v. Taft, 61 Ohio App. 200, 22 N.E.2d 510 (1938).
In granting the motion of Earleaer Kyle for summary judgment, Judge Krupansky held that Allen v. First National Bank of Fort Smith, 261 Ark. 230, 547 S.W.2d 118 (1977) is dispositive. In that case the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that a former wife who is the named beneficiary of an insurance policy issued on the life of her then husband, later divorced, is not divested of her interest in the proceeds of the policy absent a provision to that effect in the property settlement agreement. The property settlement between Earleaer Kyle and William Kyle contained no such provision.
The life insurance policy which is the subject of this appeal contained this language:
Unless otherwise provided by endorsement hereon or attached hereto, the Beneficiary for insurance payable upon the death of the Insured shall be the Insured’s spouse if living, otherwise the Insured’s estate....
“Insured spouse” was defined by the policy as: “the wife or husband of the Insured named in the application for this policy.” Judge Krupansky ruled that these provisions of the life insurance policy required that Earleaer Kyle be awarded the proceeds of the policy since she was the wife of William Kyle at the time of the application for the policy and as she was the named beneficiary of that policy at the time of William Kyle’s death.
We conclude that the district court did not err in determining that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and in granting summary judgment to Earleaer Kyle.
Affirmed. The costs of this appeal are taxed against the appellant, Eddie Mae Kyle.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D