Court Opinion

ID: 9448831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:45:34.952535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:24.319943
License: Public Domain

*782PICKETT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that the liability of the United States can be disassociated from the application filed by the veteran during his lifetime, which named his father as the beneficiary of the insurance for which application was made. This is the only basis upon which the policy could be issued, and the policy is the only basis for any obligation on the part of the United States. This action was brought to recover the proceeds of the policy, and on the undisputed facts no other action against the United States is authorized.
When the veteran made application for National Service Life Insurance he mistakenly used the form provided for applications submitted under Section 621 of the National Service Life Insurance Act. National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, § 621, amended by adding ch. 39, § 10, 65 Stat. 37 (1951). This application was rejected because it was not. made within the time required by the statute. When it was submitted, the veteran had been classified by the Veterans Administration as 100% disabled, and he was, therefore, entitled to insurance if he applied within one year under Section 620 of the Act. National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, § 620, amended by adding ch. 39, § 10, 65 Stat. 36 (1951). The mistake in applying under the wrong section is no longer material since it is agreed that the application should have been accepted as one submitted by a disabled veteran under Section 620. The United States belatedly recognized its error in not so treating the application, and a policy was issued under Section 620 in accordance with the applicable portions of the application.
If the application had been made on the form furnished for those desiring a policy under Section 620, the veteran would have been entitled to a policy insuring him from the date requested in the application. The liability of the United States is not to be determined by a meeting of the minds of the parties in the usual sense, because the right of the veteran was statutory, and the obligation of the United States was fixed upon his compliance with the statutory provisions. The Administrator of Veterans Affairs had no power to reject the application. The fact that the applicant was deceased at the time the error was recognized and corrected is immaterial, and does not affect the right created by the application.
The United States has treated the application as one submitted under Section 620, and it concedes that the veteran was insured from the date set forth therein. It seems to me that it follows that any liability of the United States must arise out of the policy which was issued, or there is no liability on the part of the United States, and the act of the Administrator in issuing the policy was a gratuity. National Service Life Insurance is not a gratuity, and this action was brought to collect the proceeds of an insurance obligation of the United States.
The policy which was issued named the appellant as beneficiary in accordance with the application, and until there was a change by the insured, the designated beneficiary is entitled to the proceeds of the policy. Changed conditions of the insured do not alone effect a change of beneficiary. We have said in numerous cases that to constitute a valid change of beneficiary in a N.S.L.I. policy, the insured must manifest an intention to make such change and perform some affirmative act to carry out that intention. Lovato v. United States, 10 Cir., 295 F.2d 78, and cases cited therein. In Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 658, 70 S.Ct. 398, 94 L.Ed. 424, the Court said:
“The controlling section of the Act provides that the insured ‘shall have the right to designate the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the insurance [within a desginated class], * * and shall * * * at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries * * 38 U.S.C. § 802(g). Thus Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to *783the named beneficiary and no other. Pursuant to the congressional command, the Government contracted to pay the insurance to the insured’s choice. He chose his. mother. * * ”
I would reverse the judgment and direct the policy proceeds to be distributed to the designated beneficiary.