Court Opinion

ID: 9460412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:49:40.834613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:36.625067
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent.
I would affirm on the opinion of the district judge. He heard the evidence of witnesses ore tenus, in open court, and, in a written opinion, found that “[pjlaintiff’s difficulty lies in the absence of any evidence that George ever did any overt act toward implementing this intention,” and again, “the plaintiff has therefore failed to establish this essential element [an overt act] of her claim by any evidence, much less the required preponderance of the evidence.” I think whether or not there has been an overt act is within the rule that findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. FRCP 52(a). I do not consider the findings by the trial judge, especially since they are concerned with the weight and sufficiency of evidence, to have been clearly erroneous.
As mentioned by the majority, its opinion may very well be disturbing not only to the United States in this case but to the thousands of beneficiaries of war risk insurance policies written by the United States and by private insurance companies. There are in force at this time at least three kinds of war risk insurance, National Service Life Insurance, 38 U.S.C. § 301 et seq; United States Government Life Insurance, 38 U.S.C. § 740 et seq; and Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance, 38 U.S.C. § 765 et seq. National Service Life Insurance and United States Government Life Insurance policies are written by the United States; however, Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance is written by private insurance carriers, 38 U.S.C. § 766 et seq.
In the case before us, the United States has already paid the claim to Barbara, a previous wife. If Barbara has dissipated the money, or even if she has not, the United States may very well be put into the position of paying twice. 38 CFR § 8.47, concerning National Service Life Insurance, provides that “a change of beneficiary to be effective must be made by notice in writing signed by the insured and forwarded to the Veterans Administration . . .;” 38 U.S.C. § 770(a) provides Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance may be pay*704able to the beneficiary “ . . . designated by a writing received in the uniformed services prior to such death,” see also 38 CFR § 9.16(c) for change of beneficiary; and 38 CFR § 6.60 provides, for United States Government Life Insurance, that a change of beneficiary must be “ . . . made by written notice to the Veterans Administration over the signature of the insured and shall not be binding on the United States unless received by the Veterans Administration.” So the methods for designating beneficiaries, or changes, are not too different in at least three kinds of war risk policies currently in force. While it may only be distasteful and inconvenient to the United States to be required to pay out the proceeds of an insurance policy twice, and it is doubtful if this mild attitude will characterize future payments, I suggest that private insurance companies must take a far more sanguine approach toward payment of war risk policies in the future, since there will be a greater possibility of paying twice. As such, I can only foresee a great increase in the amount of litigation concerning the payment of the proceeds of war risk policies, and especially I would expect a considerable increase in the number of interpleader actions filed both by the United States and by private insurance companies in order to avoid double payment. Litigation, of course, in all events will cause much delay in paying just claims to needy beneficiaries.
For reasons best known to itself, the United States has not pleaded that part of 38 CFR § 8.47 which furnishes a defense to the United States for payments made before proper notice of change of beneficiary has been received by the Veterans Administration under National Service Life Insurance policies. A similar, if not identical, provision exists for United States Government Life Insurance, 38 CFR § 6.60, but Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance apparently does not carry any such defensive regulation or statute. 38 U.S.C. § 765 et seq, 38 CFR § 9.1, et seq. While these provisions have thus far been relatively free from litigation, I cannot but expect both the United States and private insurance companies to assert every defense to payment in the future to avoid the possibility of the double payment which has occurred in this case.