Opinion ID: 1750963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of Change in Policy

Text: It is undisputed that the Protective Life policy, which was the policy in effect at the time of Bret's death and which is the policy at issue in this case, is not the same policy that was in effect at the time the divorce judgment was entered; the policy in effect at that time was the State Farm policy. As noted, Pamela testified that Bret had allowed the State Farm policy to lapse and replaced it with a policy with Primerica Life Insurance Company, which he also allowed to lapse. The policy at issue here, the policy issued by Protective Life, was issued after the Primerica policy had lapsed and after Bret told a Metro Bank employee that he needed to purchase the policy in order to comply with the terms of the divorce judgment. In Brown v. Brown, 604 So.2d 365 (Ala. 1992), a divorce judgment required a father to keep his then existing life insurance policies in effect and to name his son as the irrevocable beneficiary of those policies. The divorce judgment specifically referenced the particular policies on the father's life that were in effect at the time the divorce judgment was entered. After the divorce judgment was entered, the father named his son as the beneficiary of the policies, but he later allowed one of those policies to lapse. The father subsequently purchased another policy but did not name his son as beneficiary of that policy; rather, he named his new wife as the beneficiary. After the father died, the son claimed an interest in the policy the father had purchased after he had allowed the original policy to lapse. The father's new wife argued that because the policy was not the same policy in effect at the time the divorce judgment was entered the son did not have a vested interest in that policy. This Court disagreed, noting that the evidence showed that the new policy was purchased as a replacement for the policy referenced in the divorce judgment. As noted, in the instant case, a Metro Bank employee testified that Bret told her that he needed to purchase the Protective Life policy in order to comply with the terms of the divorce judgment. Additionally, the record contains a letter sent by Metro Bank to Protective Life requesting documentation showing Stephen's interest as beneficiary of the policy. The letter states: This must be furnished to the courts per divorce decree. . . . Accordingly, we hold that Pamela has presented substantial evidence indicating that the Protective Life policy was purchased as a replacement for the State Farm policy in which Stephen had a vested equitable interest. Therefore, under the reasoning of Brown, we hold that substantial evidence exists indicating that Stephen had a vested interest in the Protective Life policy. [2]