Court Opinion

ID: 9707472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:12:47.827112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:33.495797
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion affirms a summary judgment which prefers a long-divorced wife over a surviving spouse (who is a defendant in the action as Executor) in awarding $27,000.00 under a double-indemnity life insurance policy issued to Donald A. Davis.
It does so on the strength of a written designation of beneficiary made six years prior to death and made also while decedent was still married to Catherine Davis, the plaintiff herein. Furthermore, the designation of beneficiary was made in connection with insurance coverage which was no longer effective at the time of death.
The majority does all this without benefit of trial on the premise the designation of beneficiary was applicable not only to the coverage for which it was specifically intended but also to all subsequent insurance acquired by decedent under a group policy written by Travelers Insurance Company for the employees of Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, Inc.
Donald A. Davis was one of those employees when he met his death by drowning in 1969. He had worked for the company for some time and at first was a route salesman. In 1963, he first became covered under the company’s group life policy. The amount of his insurance was $3000.00. At this time he filed a written designation of beneficiary naming Catherine Davis, who was then his wife, as his beneficiary. Later plaintiff and Donald A. Davis were divorced and the decree provided that he should maintain his life, insurance then in force or other insurance “in comparable amount” for the benefit of his wife and children. Subsequent to the date of divorce decedent was advanced to a better position by his employer and became entitled to greater insurance benefits under a different class of coverage. A new certificate of insurance was issued to him in 1968 carrying coverage in the amount of $13,500.00 with a double-indemnity provision in the event of accidental death. The certificate provided among other things that it replaced any and all certificates previously issued for delivery to Donald A. Davis under the company group policy.
Two other provisions are sufficiently important to be set out in full. One is as follows:
“Beneficiary — The beneficiary designated by the employee in writing and filed at the office of the employer where the records of the insurance are maintained.”
The other is:
“Payment of any part of the insurance for which there is no beneficiary designated by the employee or surviving at the death of the employee shall be made to the executors or administrators of the employee * * * ”
Under this provision the insurance company also retained the option of making payments to certain designated persons when no beneficiary was named, but this has no importance to the present controversy.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was sustained and the proceeds of the policy ordered paid to her on the strength of the pleadings and on the deposition of William J. Houghton, Jr., an official of Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, Inc. The executor filed no affidavits in opposition thereto, but even so the plaintiff, as the one asking summary judgment, was obligated to show herself entitled thereto under rule 237, Rules of Civil Procedure. Sherwood v. Nissen, 179 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 1970) ; Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company v. The Security State Bank, 182 N.W.2d 116, 118 (Iowa 1970).
*532I think the majority is wrong because in my opinion there are fact issues which must be resolved and which cannot be determined by motion for summary judgment. Although there are other less important areas of factual uncertainty which might be referred to, I limit myself to a discussion of the ultimate issue in the case — the meaning of the written designation of beneficiary made in 1963 in connection with the certificate of insurance then issued to Donald A. Davis in the sum of $3000.00.
The summary judgment may be affirmed only upon a finding that this designation must as a matter of law be held applicable to the certificate of insurance issued in 1968. This is the whole theory upon which the summary judgment was granted and upon which the majority affirms. One difficulty with this conclusion — -at least for me — is that it assumes somehow that Travelers Insurance Company and Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, Inc. are the only interested parties and that they are the ones to determine what the language used in the policy meant. Both the trial court and the majority virtually accept Mr. Houghton’s deposition as conclusive on this subject. Yet it is only his interpretation of the contract provisions, which, upon trial, may or may not be taken as correct.
To me the decisive point is not what Mr. Houghton thinks, nor even what Travelers Insurance Company intended. It is, rather, what decedent as a reasonable person would understand the language of the policy to mean. This court has said on several occasions that a contract of insurance should be construed from the standpoint of what an ordinary man would believe it to mean. Goodsell v. State Auto and Casualty Underwriters, 261 Iowa 135, 140, 153 N.W.2d 458, 461 (1967); Central Bearings Company v. Wolverine Insurance Company, 179 N.W. 2d 443, 445 (Iowa 1970). Since the insured is now dead, this is of necessity provable only by circumstantial evidence. Admittedly the executor’s burden in this respect would be a difficult one, but she should have the opportunity to meet it if she can.
I do not find the policy language so clear and unambiguous that reasonable minds could not disagree on the meaning of the terms. Apparently the majority believes that reference to a designation of beneficiary on file must necessarily mean a designation previously on file. I cannot accept the rationale which holds as a matter of law that the 1963 designation fixed the rights of the parties under the 1968 certificate.
The issue then clearly is whether the written designation of 1963 provides that payment shall be made to the plaintiff Catherine Davis or whether payment should be made to the decedent’s estate because no beneficiary had been designated as to the insurance effective at his death. Despite Mr. Houghton’s long deposition, there is not one bit of evidence contained therein to substantiate plaintiff’s theory that the beneficiary question was brought to decedent’s attention at the time the new certificate was issued or that the matter was discussed with him or explained to him. Mr. Houghton, in fact, specifically denies any such conversation. The most that can be said in this regard is that someone else in the organization periodically enclosed in the pay envelopes a reminder that insurance beneficiaries should be changed when necessary. Even assuming such literature came to decedent’s attention, it would not foreclose this executor’s right to a trial. If decedent was justified in assuming in the first place from the language of his new certificate that the insurance payable under it would go to his estate if he did not designate a beneficiary for that coverage, then it was unnecessary for him to consider making any designation of beneficiary as long as he was satisfied to have the proceeds put in his estate.
Clearly this crucial issue was a fact question to be decided by a jury or other fact finder under the rules announced recently by this court in Brammer v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 182 N.W. *5332d 169, 172 (Iowa 1970) and the authorities there cited.
I would reverse the trial court and remand for a trial on the merits.