Court Opinion

ID: 9641400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:30:45.187494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.276201
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. I dispute the majority’s interpretation of the contract provision reading: “Upon receipt of such notice... at the Administrative Office of the Company, the new designation will take effect as of the date the notice is signed, whether or not the Annuitant or Contract Owner is alive at the time of receipt of such notice.” The majority limits the applicability of this provision to situations where the annuitant offers written notice that is not received until after his death (i.e. when the annuitant dies as the notice is in transit to the company). However, the contract does not explicitly require the annuitant to offer notice. Rather, this provision states that the new designation is effective as of the date “the notice is signed.”
As the Chief Justice mentions in his dissent, the written notice requirement is for Hartford’s benefit, to protect the company from multiple payment obligations. Although the contract requires written notice to the company, it does not state that the annuitant must personally offer the notice. Whether Hart manifested his intent to change the beneficiary cannot be deciphered from this ambiguous annuitant contract, but is a question of fact to be decided by the jury.
LAMBERT, C.J., joins this dissent.