Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aaa Life Insurance Company v. Deborah A. Kneavel

March 15, 2012

AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF
v.
DEBORAH A. KNEAVEL, GUIDETTA ALICE KNEAVEL, MARY A. MCALLISTER, AND ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

MEMORANDUM

In this interpleader proceeding, plaintiff AAA Life Insurance Company has filed suit against all parties that are or were potential beneficiaries under a $100,000 life-insurance policy issued by AAA to one Clemens J. Kneavel, who died on November 8, 2009. AAA acknowledges that proceeds on the policy "are due and owing to someone," but reports that it "is in great doubt as to which defendant is entitled to be paid some or all of the policy proceeds and has accordingly brought this action in an effort to resolve its doubt in this regard." (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12, 10.)

It has thus fallen to the defendants to pursue their respective claims in this forum to some or all of the proceeds from Clemens' policy. St. Jude Children's Hospital was voluntarily dismissed on September 19, 2011 (Doc. 44), but three defendants remain. The answers to the complaint, cross-claims, and recently adjudicated cross-motions for summary judgment have pitted defendant Deborah A. Kneavel against defendants Guidetta Alice Kneavel and Mary A. McAllister*fn1 as the rival camps in the contest for the proceeds of the life-insurance policy.

Presently before the court is the motion (Doc. 39) of defendant Deborah A. Kneavel, which seeks to preclude Guidetta from introducing evidence of an alleged oral contract between her and her deceased brother Clemens. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

I. Background

The core and undisputed facts of this case are fairly straightforward. On April 15, 1995, Clemens J. Kneavel applied for a $100,000 group life-insurance term policy with an effective date of June 15, 1995. (Doc. 11-2, at 1--2.) Dues were to be paid annually. (Id. at 2.) All premiums on the policy were properly paid. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7, Doc. 1; Doc. 10, ¶ 7; Doc. 11, ¶ 7.) Clemens died on November 8, 2009 (Doc. 1, at 6, 7), and AAA "offers to and is ready to deposit the proceeds" of the $100,000 policy "with the Court on the entry of an appropriate order" (Doc. 1, ¶ 12), leaving only the question of to whom the proceeds should be remitted.

During the time that Clemens held the life-insurance policy with AAA, he submitted at least nine Request for Change Beneficiary/Name (RCBN) forms to AAA. (Doc. 1, at 8--18; Doc. 10-1; Doc. 26-5; Doc. 26-9; Doc. 26-11.) The original policy application listed Clemens' sister, Guidetta, as the sole beneficiary (Doc. 11-1, at 1, 2), but numerous RCBN forms submitted over the years changed (or were intended to change) distribution of the proceeds of the policy. Only those forms relevant to the instant dispute receive discussion. The first RCBN was signed in August or September 2001, left Guidetta as the primary beneficiary with an entitlement to 100% of the proceeds, and named Mary McAllister, another sister of Clemens', as the 100% contingent beneficiary. (Doc. 1, at 8, 18; id. at 12.) The first RCBN form to designate anyone other than Guidetta or Mary as a beneficiary under the policy bears a date of March 21, 2006, and names Deborah, Clemens' wife as of April 16, 2006, as a 60% beneficiary, with 30% to (Guidetta) Alice and 10% to Mary. (Id. at 17; Doc. 26-4.) Other RCBN forms filed through April 2008 varied the entitlement amounts of the three women in Clemens' life. (Doc. 1, at 8, 11--17.)

Most significant to the dispute at hand are the last three RCBN forms. The form signed August 18, 2008, lists Deborah as a 75% beneficiary and Guidetta as a 25% beneficiary. (Doc. 1, at 8, 11.) Less than a month later, on September 11, 2008, Clemens signed another RCBN naming, as the life-insurance policy originally did, Guidetta as the sole beneficiary with a 100% entitlement to the policy proceeds. (Id. at 10.)

The final RCBN form is dated October 31, 2008, just eight days before Clemens died. There are two copies of this form in the record. Both name Deborah as a 95% beneficiary, Guidetta as a 5% beneficiary, and Mary as a 5% contingent beneficiary. One does not bear Clemens' signature or mark; Deborah had taken the unsigned, unmarked form to the bank, where it was notarized and faxed to AAA.

(Id. at 9; Doc. 26, ¶¶ 10--11.) Deborah contends that she took the notarized form home and reviewed it with Clemens, who "insisted that he make his mark on the document." (Doc. 26, ¶ 12--13.) Clemens, whom Deborah described as weak and close to death, did not have the strength to write; she said she held his wrist as he scratched an "X" on the signature line of the RCBN form. (Id. ¶ 14; Doc. 26-11.) Deborah then mailed the form bearing Clemens' mark to AAA. (Doc. 26, ¶ 15.)

The circumstances surrounding the creation, submission, and marking of the final RCBN form are hotly disputed. It is in the apparent attempt to cool the dispute and narrow the issues surrounding who gets what of Clemens' policy that Deborah filed the pending motion. If it were successful, it would thoroughly undercut Guidetta's primary argument on the merits of this case: that she had entered into an oral contract with Clemens that prevented him from legally changing the beneficiary of his life-insurance policy.

II. Discussion

As noted above, Guidetta claims that Clemens entered into an oral contract with her, under which Guidetta was to be named the sole, irrevocable beneficiary of Clemens' life-insurance proceeds. If Guidetta's claim proves true, then any RCBN inconsistent therewith, including the final one dated October 30, 2009, that named Deborah as 95% beneficiary, is invalid.

Deborah's argument in support of her motion in limine has two major facets First, she argues that the personal representative of Clemens' estate is an indispensable party to this action, meanwhile noting that Clemens' estate has had no personal representative appointed. Second, she maintains that the Dead Man's Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. ยง 5930, precludes Guidetta from testifying ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.