by Guest » Mon Oct 18, 2010 08:32 am
Wife gave up looking for work in 2010 when husbd was suddenly diagnosed with incurable cancer husband died recently and wife found out that named beneficiary of husbd's work group life policy was originally "unnamed" when he first started working there but then through his year end written report reminder issued by HR, he changed it to his mother. These yearly reminder reports were no longer issued and he later went on to meet his future wife & became a common law partner 2 years later (2001) and then 4 yrs after that, he got officially married (2005).
No company yearly reminder reports were ever sent out after 1998 and in his dossier in 2001 the company then received a common law status confirmation "affidavit".
The cie then made adjustments to his policies to reflect his new status in 2002 and once married, he confirmed that he revoked his mother on both his cie life policy and his privately owned life policy.
In january 2010 his incurable cancer was diagnosed stage 4 with no visible prior signs. He tried chemo and it failed and died subsequently in early sept 2 weeks shy of his 1st jubilee (5th wedding anniversary).
To his unemployed wife's horror his mother had remained the beneficiary in cie records?
He even declared to the notary preparing the will (prior to commencing chemo) that his 2 life policies were for his wife as well as his pension n RRSPs n all other worldly possessions.
He also told her verbally that his cie's group life policy was left to take care of the estate affairs, her future education fees, and to take care of living and personal expenses....
The other private life policy was for her to buy a home, learn to drive n get a car and to top up her retirement nest egg....
They also planned for IVF treatments so he had his sperm banked before commencing chemo in order to preserve his fertility.
Can this unusual situation be favorable for his unemployed distraught wife to ask for a revocation of said beneficiary?
His mother has his father who has many life policies all with her as beneficiary and she doesn't need the money.
Note: she had always been difficult with his wife and had even tried to postpone the marriage...
Also, the official signed n stamped affidavit, made out in 2001, stipulated that "all cie benefits" were to be transferred to the designated common law spouse (in the fine print) but the cie's benefits department says this clause doesn't supercede the signed beneficiary on the cie life policy?! Is that true?
Thank you for your detailed reply
No company yearly reminder reports were ever sent out after 1998 and in his dossier in 2001 the company then received a common law status confirmation "affidavit".
The cie then made adjustments to his policies to reflect his new status in 2002 and once married, he confirmed that he revoked his mother on both his cie life policy and his privately owned life policy.
In january 2010 his incurable cancer was diagnosed stage 4 with no visible prior signs. He tried chemo and it failed and died subsequently in early sept 2 weeks shy of his 1st jubilee (5th wedding anniversary).
To his unemployed wife's horror his mother had remained the beneficiary in cie records?
He even declared to the notary preparing the will (prior to commencing chemo) that his 2 life policies were for his wife as well as his pension n RRSPs n all other worldly possessions.
He also told her verbally that his cie's group life policy was left to take care of the estate affairs, her future education fees, and to take care of living and personal expenses....
The other private life policy was for her to buy a home, learn to drive n get a car and to top up her retirement nest egg....
They also planned for IVF treatments so he had his sperm banked before commencing chemo in order to preserve his fertility.
Can this unusual situation be favorable for his unemployed distraught wife to ask for a revocation of said beneficiary?
His mother has his father who has many life policies all with her as beneficiary and she doesn't need the money.
Note: she had always been difficult with his wife and had even tried to postpone the marriage...
Also, the official signed n stamped affidavit, made out in 2001, stipulated that "all cie benefits" were to be transferred to the designated common law spouse (in the fine print) but the cie's benefits department says this clause doesn't supercede the signed beneficiary on the cie life policy?! Is that true?
Thank you for your detailed reply
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 09:19 am Post Subject:
He even declared to the notary preparing the will (prior to commencing chemo) that his 2 life policies were for his wife as well as his pension n RRSPs n all other worldly possessions.
the official signed n stamped affidavit, made out in 2001, stipulated that "all cie benefits" were to be transferred to the designated common law spouse (in the fine print)
OK, so you're in Canada. I do not believe Canadian law differs from American law when it comes to life insurance and beneficiaries. Wills, affidavits, video recording, whatever, cannot change a beneficiary. Only a properly executed written request to the insurance company can do that.
When the decedent learned of his terminal diagnosis, and went to all of the trouble to make out a will and take care of other business, evidently he failed to do the one thing necessary with his life insurance . . . change the beneficiary. How did that happen? Who knows? If you could prove that he completed a beneficiary change form and that it was never sent to the insurance company, then you might have the basis for a civil suit against that person, but not against the insurance company.
When the death benefit is paid to "Mom" it it her property. No one can force her to do anything with the money she does not want to do.
That's just the way it is.
Beneficiaries is the one topic that most insurance agents and most HR people understand the importance and significance of the least. Because they don't understand it, neither do their clients/employees. And it often results in exactly the kind of situation posted here. There's precious little that can be done about it, if that much.
Add your comment