Death without a named beneficiary

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:42 pm Post Subject:

Registered representatives, I.E. (stock brokers) ARE useful idiots.

Keep posting I.E. you're a useful idiot.

Lori…. I've been banned before and it's always because some moderator and or administrator doesn't know what they're talking about such as yourself on this thread.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.

And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:42 pm Post Subject:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

February 2, 2006

436 F.3d 1109


24
When a plan participant fails to identify a beneficiary, we must turn to the governing plan documents to ascertain the default beneficiary. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8) ("`[B]eneficiary' means a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan."). Here, however, the parties dispute which of two plans found in the record was in effect at the time of Parker's death. Pietrofitta argues that a Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc. policy was in effect at the time of Parker's death, and that it makes the decedent's spouse the default beneficiary.[3] In contrast, the Estate argues that a Bank of America plan was in effect at the time of Parker's death, and that it establishes the decedent's estate as the default beneficiary.[4] Although the parties advanced these arguments in their opening summary judgment pleadings and at the motions hearing before the district court, the district court did not make a finding of fact as to which plan was in effect at the time of Parker's death.[5] The court referred to the Bank of America plan in its general order, but because of its disposition, never reached the question of which plan governed for purposes of determining a default beneficiary. We cannot tell from the two plan documents in the record their effective dates or how, if at all, they govern Parker's designation. We therefore remand to the district court to make a factual finding as to which plan governed at the time of Parker's death and to determine the default beneficiary.

IV. CONCLUSION

25
The judgment is reversed, and we remand for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. Each party to this appeal shall bear its own costs.

26
REVERSED and REMANDED.

Notes:

[1]
The relationship codes may be very useful. If, for example, a plan participant named "Mary Smith" as his beneficiary, the code might clarify whether Mary Smith was the participant's wife ("SP" for spouse) or his mother ("PA" for parent)

[2]
Here, however, is one lesson of our cautionary tale: plan administrators disserve both plan participants and beneficiaries when they accept a beneficiary designation that does not unambiguously identify the beneficiaries. If plan administrators will accept a designation by reference, they would be well advised to require that plan participants either attach the documents referred to or otherwise clearly identify where they may be found

[3]
That policy reads: "If no beneficiary is named or no beneficiary survives the insured individual, proceeds shall be payable in the following order to: 1) the spouse, if living. . . ."

[4]
The Bank of America employee handbook provides: "If you die and no beneficiary designation is in effect as to any part of the insurance, or if there is no designated beneficiary then living with respect to any part of the insurance, the insurance company may, at its option, pay such part to your estate."

[5]
At oral argument, counsel for Pietrofitta argued, and counsel for the Estate seemed to concede, that the Estate did not argue below that the Bank of America plan governed and that the argument has been waived. The Estate plainly attached a copy of the Bank of America handbook to its first summary judgment pleading. Documents from both the Boatmen's plan and the Bank of America plan are in the record before us. Moreover, counsel for the Estate at the district court's motions hearing argued that the Bank of America plan governed. The argument has not been waived

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 am Post Subject:

hmm wonder who the guest is?

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 01:44 am Post Subject:

Gary, If nothing else, your failure when it comes to logical thought is quite amusing. I could pick apart your full post, but it's obvious that you simply can't comprehend anything that doesn't go along with your incorrect preconceptions.

It is quite interesting how you keep getting kicked off of boards and it's always the moderators fault for not understanding something. Gary, you get kicked off for your combination of lack of knowledge, beligerence, and inability to admit when you are wrong.

Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 01:55 am Post Subject:

And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.

Now tell me something Missy…..how does that square with your so-called “preference clause” you seem to think controls?

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 01:59 am Post Subject:

Now Missy and I.E. (stock broker) just EXACTLY what do you think will prevail in Court? The Florida Law that governs this situation or a contract provision that is contrary to state law?

I can hardly wait to read your non-answer answers.

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:04 am Post Subject:

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing!

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:51 am Post Subject:

Lori, smoke and mirrors is usually used to describe someone doing something to intentionally hide the truth. With Gary, I truly think that is mind is wired in such a way that actually prevents him from seeing the truth when it doesn't jive with his opinions. In other words, no matter how wrong he is, he can't admit that he's wrong simply because he can't comprehend being wrong.

I just sold a Florida policy today. The preference beneficiary was the owner of the policy if living and if the owner is not living, it is the estate of the owner.

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:25 am Post Subject:

Best thread EVER!

Thank you guest for that "Federal Court" case on GROUP LIFE INSURANCE no doubt governed under ERISA. Bad things happen without proper beneficiary designations and especially when Federal Law clashes with State Law.

Now what should be abundantly clear to anyone who may read this thread is the importance of proper beneficiary designations.

ONLY registered representatives controlled by their Bernard Madoff type broker dealers with little to no insurance experience would think everything's going to be "OKAY" without proper beneficiary designations.

Hmmmmmmmm, seems to me that court case DEMOSTRATES the legal mess that is created when beneficiary designations are left blank or are improper.

There's nothing quite like litigation over life insurance proceeds, the lawyers love it because they know they are going to get paid.

So tell me something so called Insurance Expert; and Lori; and Guest…..just exactly what point do you think you’ve made on this thread?

Has this thread validated so called Insurance Expert’s premise that a preference clause makes everything “okay?”

Hardly.

And I hope I.E. was the “guest” who found that court case. It pretty much sums up what I’ve been saying all along…..BLANK BENEFICAIRY DESIGNATIONS will go through the Probate Court System.

And now for some Gary Spicuzza fun.

Anonymouse so-called Insurance Expert who started this thread wrote in his very first post:

There have been quite a few posts with this subject.

Many people have been saying that if there is not a named beneficiary, the proceeds get paid to the estate.

I chimed in and said that a policy could have a default beneficiary. I also said that I thought that most policies don't have a default beneficiary.

Anyway, I sold two policies today from two different companies and both of them on the application said what would happen to the money if no beneficiary was alive. In neither case would the money go directly to the estate.

I just sold a Florida policy today. The preference beneficiary was the owner of the policy if living and if the owner is not living, it is the estate of the owner.

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:11 am Post Subject:

Now what should be abundantly clear to anyone who may read this thread is the importance of proper beneficiary designations.

There's nothing quite like litigation over life insurance proceeds, the lawyers love it because they know they are going to get paid.

Has this thread validated so called Insurance Expert’s premise that a preference clause makes everything “okay?”

Federal Court case that shows the type of litigation hell the heirs will go through without proper beneficiary designations as some type of proof your flawed premise is valid.

THE PROCEEDS WILL BE PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE OWNER