Opinion ID: 1750963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Protective Life

Text: Likewise, Pamela argues that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment in favor of Protective Life as to the declaratory judgment. We hold that a jury question exists as to Protective Life's knowledge based on facts developed at the time it issued the life insurance policy on Bret's life and at the time of payment of the proceeds of the policy. Although Carden stated in her deposition that she was paid and employed by Metro Bank, Carden signed various Protective Life forms appearing in the record as its agent. Therefore, Protective Life, through Carden, had notice of the same information that was available to Metro Bank. We deem the question whether Protective Life had a duty to inquire further into the possibility that another party had an interest in the policy also to be a question of fact for the jury. A jury question also exists as to Protective Life's knowledge at the time it paid the proceeds of the policy to Metro Bank. Pamela testified in her deposition, in response to questions from Pamela's attorney, as follows: Q. I think you said Bret died what, August 16, 2002. What did you do with regard to the Protective Life Insurance policy when you learned of his death? A. The following Monday I called to see what I needed to do to place a claim for Stephen. Q. You called who? A. Protective Life claims department. In response to Pamela's telephone call, Protective Life wrote her a letter dated August 28, 2002, and sent her a claim form for Stephen. That letter stated, in pertinent part: The beneficiaries are Stephen Hanner, 75% and Ann Hanner, 25%. However the collateral assignment from Metro Bank is for the pay off amount of $313,098.85. Unfortunately, the full amount of the insurance benefit will be paid to the bank. We need each beneficiary [to] complete a claim form so we may pay this balance to Metro Bank. . . . . Please have the beneficiary complete the enclosed claim form to the best of their ability. . . .  Pamela testified that she refused to submit the claim form. According to Pamela's brief, on September 6, 2002, which was three days before Protective Life paid the proceeds of the policy to Metro Bank, Pamela's attorney informed Protective Life by telephone and by a faxed letter of Stephen's interest in the insurance policy. The record contains a letter from Pamela's attorney to Protective Life dated September 6, 2002, informing Protective Life of Stephen's interest in the policy. However, the received stamp on that letter indicates that it was not received until September 12, three days after Protective Life paid the proceeds to Metro Bank. Protective Life argues that because it did not receive the letter from Pamela's attorney until after it had paid the proceeds of the policy to Metro Bank, it could not have known about Stephen's interest in the policy before it paid the proceeds. That argument does not consider the evidence of Pamela's telephone call shortly after Bret's death and the letter from Protective Life mailing Pamela a claim form for Stephen. Accordingly, we hold that whether and to what extent Protective Life knew of Stephen's interest in the policy proceeds at the time it paid the proceeds to Metro Bank is also a question of fact for the jury. Thus, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for Protective Life on its complaint for a declaratory judgment.