{
  "id": 8522487,
  "name": "OLLIE ALLEN v. INVESTORS HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allen v. Investors Heritage Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1982-05-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 818DC844",
  "first_page": "133",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 133"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E. 2d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561955
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0666-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 6403,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20550773423469862
    },
    "sha256": "4432181db637891b48dd55f5cc30b2cba46889a20471acf3c1befba53909d937",
    "simhash": "1:39b3721666b9609e",
    "word_count": 1029
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:38.946391+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge WEBB concurs.",
      "Judge Clark dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "OLLIE ALLEN v. INVESTORS HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s only assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff contends that he, rather than defendant, was entitled to summary judgment in his favor.\nIt is not disputed that in 1976 defendant insurance company received a signed and witnessed change of beneficiary form designating plaintiff\u2019s wife as beneficiary of the insurance policy. The signature on the form purported to be that of the insured.\nPlaintiff argues, however, that receipt of this form did not excuse defendant from liability for its allegedly wrongful payout to plaintiff\u2019s estranged wife because:\n1. The insured did not sign the form;\n2. Even if the insured did sign, the signature was ineffective because of the insured\u2019s incompetence;\n3. Plaintiff\u2019s wife had no insurable interest in the insured\u2019s life.\nWhile we are not unsympathetic to the wrong allegedly suffered by plaintiff at the hand of his former wife, we can find nothing in the record to support his claim against the insurance company. The change of beneficiary form appeared in all respects to have been properly executed and contained nothing which might have placed defendant on notice of forgery or undue influence. Indeed, we must reluctantly conclude that plaintiff himself was in a far better position to foresee his wife\u2019s action and to protect his interests therefrom than was defendant. By his own admission, plaintiff had demanded that his wife surrender the policy to him after their separation and she had refused. Following the death of the insured, more than one month passed before defendant issued a check to plaintiff\u2019s wife as beneficiary. Yet, at no time before or after the death of the insured did plaintiff notify the insurance company of his wife\u2019s wrongful possession of the policy, or of his continuing claim thereto. We must conclude, therefore, that defendant reasonably relied on the apparent validity of the change of beneficiary form and had no notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged disability of the insured to make such a change, or of unlawfulness due to the purported beneficiary\u2019s alleged lack of an insurable interest.\nWith regard to the issue of competency, we find that plaintiff has failed to make allegations of fact in his affidavit which would support a finding in his favor. Absent some forecast of evidence which would support plaintiff\u2019s claim, the court could not consider his allegation that the insured lacked legal capacity, to change the beneficiary of the policy on his life.\nFinally, as to the question of insurable interest, we agree that plaintiff\u2019s wife may have lacked an interest in the life of the insured upon which the original issuance of the policy could have been based. However, once a policy has been lawfully issued, it will not be rendered unlawful because the insured designates a beneficiary who could not have procured the policy himself. Flintall v. Charlotte Mutual Insurance Co., 259 N.C. 666, 131 S.E. 2d 312 (1963).\nIn view of the foregoing, we hold that summary judgment was properly granted.\nAffirmed.\nJudge WEBB concurs.\nJudge Clark dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Clark\ndissenting.\nPlaintiff applied to the insurer\u2019s authorized agent for the life insurance policy, explaining to the agent at the time that he was assuming responsibility for the care and maintenance of the insured. The agent knew that insured could not sign his name, and the agent requested plaintiff\u2019s wife to sign the policy application for the insured. The agent was informed that plaintiff would pay the premiums and that plaintiff would need the policy proceeds to defray the funeral expenses of the insured upon his death. All these facts were known to the insurer\u2019s agent.\nIt further appears from the pleadings and supporting material that plaintiff\u2019s estranged wife, the third-party defendant, signed the name of the insured on the change of beneficiary form, either fraudulently or without knowledge or authority of the insured or the plaintiff, and that insured was mentally incompetent at the time.\nIn my opinion, plaintiff was more than a beneficiary with a contingent interest. And insurer, through its agent, had notice of insured\u2019s disability. There are unanswered questions of fact and law which make summary judgment for the defendant improper. I vote to reverse the judgment.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Duke and Brown, by John E. Duke, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "John W. Dees for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OLLIE ALLEN v. INVESTORS HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 818DC844\n(Filed 4 May 1982)\nInsurance \u00a7\u00a7 12, 29.1\u2014 life insurance policy \u2014 change of beneficiary \u2014 no insurable interest \u2014 summary judgment proper\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant life insurance company where plaintiff purchased an insurance policy, payable to himself, for the purpose of paying funeral expenses upon the death of his uncle, where plaintiffs estranged wife executed a form changing the beneficiary of the policy to herself without plaintiffs knowledge and where plaintiffs wife may have lacked an interest in the life of the insured upon which the original issuance of the policy could have been based. Plaintiff knew his wife had changed the beneficiary, plaintiff failed to make allegations of fact in his affidavit which would support a finding that his uncle lacked legal capacity to change the beneficiary of the policy on his life, and once a policy has been lawfully issued, it will not be rendered unlawful because the insurer designates a beneficiary who could not have procured the policy himself.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Ellis, Judge. Judgment entered 9 June 1981 in District Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 April 1982.\nThis action arose when plaintiff sought to recover the benefits of a life insurance policy on the life of plaintiff\u2019s uncle. Plaintiff had purchased the policy, payable to himself, in 1975 for the purpose of paying funeral expenses upon the death of his uncle, an incompetent, whose only living relative was plaintiff. In 1976, without plaintiff\u2019s knowledge, plaintiff\u2019s estranged wife executed a form changing the beneficiary of the policy to herself, signing her name and that of the insured. When plaintiff\u2019s uncle died in 1978, defendant paid the policy proceeds to plaintiff\u2019s wife. Plaintiff paid all of his uncle\u2019s burial expenses.\nFrom summary judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nDuke and Brown, by John E. Duke, for plaintiff appellant.\nJohn W. Dees for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0133-01",
  "first_page_order": 163,
  "last_page_order": 166
}