Court Opinion

ID: 9454073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:35:04.804939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:57.493179
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)-
I dissent.
As the majority opinion points out, the formalities required in cases of private insurance, which are rigidly bound to contract principles, are not normally required in cases involving National Service Life Insurance. Payments are regarded more in the nature of Government benefits. Strict adherence to the Veterans Administration Regulations has not been demanded when considerations of intent and equity call for relaxation. Behrens v. United States, 299 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1962); Mitchell v. United States, 165 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1948); Annotation 2 A.L.R.2d 489 (1948).
Here I would say the record clearly establishes that the insured intended his widow to have all his service benefits of whatsoever kind and his first wife to have nothing. Certainly the District Court’s findings as to intent have ample support.
Where the insured is aware of the existence of his insurance I can see good reason for requiring some overt act in corroboration of his expressions of intent to change beneficiaries, or some proof that he believed that he had accomplished the change. Lack of such action or proof rationally suggests that the true intent was otherwise than as was expressed.
I see no reason for applying this rule to the rare case where the insured was unaware of the existence of his insurance. Lack of overt action or proof of belief of change is not inconsistent with an intent that a specific person should *157be his beneficiary. More importantly, such evidence is of the sort one would expect never to exist under the cireum-stances. By requiring one who does not know that he is insured to behave as if he did know we put the intent of the insured wholly beyond the reach of the Government in all such cases.
I would affirm.