Court Opinion

ID: 9778569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:12:47.266266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:11.733743
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellant now urges, relative to her second, third and fourth points of error, that Cameo had apparent authority to accept and process an employee’s change of beneficiary, but appellant’s points of error cannot be expanded to include the theory of apparent authority. They clearly referred to actual authority.
There is another and perhaps more compelling reason why the judgment in this cause should be affirmed. The insurance contract is in evidence. It requires that the change of beneficiary be in writing, but we do not find any requirement that the change be signed by the insured. Since it need not have been signed by Dobbs, the summary judgment evidence in the record raises no issues of material fact which could be the basis of any recovery against Cameo on any of the theories raised by appellant : negligent acceptance of an unsigned change form, misrepresentation or es-toppel.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.