Opinion ID: 1010270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Irrevocable Trust

Text: Karen makes two arguments with respect to the Irrevocable Trust. First, she claims that IDS and Tolley fraudulently concealed from her the existence of the Irrevocable Trust and Maxey’s life insurance policy that was the sole asset of this trust because she requested information on all of John’s accounts in which she had an interest. This argument is without merit. After John’s death, Karen requested that IDS and Tolley provide information regarding the accounts Daddy set up . . . with you for me and my family. J.A. at 26. However, the Irrevocable Trust was set up by Maxey. Karen did not request information regarding her mother’s accounts. The district court correctly found that Tolley had no reason to believe Karen sought information regarding Maxey’s accounts. Therefore, there is no evidence of an affirmative act designed to prevent Karen’s discovery of the insurance policy or the Irrevocable Trust. Second, Karen claims that IDS and Tolley owed her a duty, as beneficiary of the insurance policy, to inform her of its existence. This argument too is without merit. Tolley sold the life insurance policy to Maxey, and this policy was written and administered by IDS. Neither IDS nor Tolley set up the Trust; Tolley testified that the Trust was set up by Maxey and her legal counsel. Further, neither IDS nor Tolley was a Trustee; Karen’s sisters were the Trustees. An insurer owes a fiduciary duty to the insured. Weese v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 879 F.2d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1989). Therefore, IDS and Tolley, as insurers, owed a fiduciary to Maxey, the insured. In addition, a trustee owes a fiduciary duty to beneficiaries to provide, upon request, complete and accurate information as to the nature and amount of the trust property. Faircloth v. Lundy Packing Co., 91 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Therefore, Karen’s siblings, as Trustees, owed a duty to Karen, as a beneficiary, to provide information about the trust property upon request. However, neither IDS nor Tolley, as insurers, owed a duty to Karen, as beneficiary. TULLY v. TOLLEY 7 Because IDS and Tolley did not fraudulently conceal the existence of the life insurance policy or the Irrevocable Trust, and because they owed Karen no duty to inform her of the existence of either, the district court properly granted summary judgment for IDS and Tolley with regard to the Irrevocable Trust.