From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

concluding that the insured did not meet the standard because it was within the her power to resubmit the form the month between rejection of her request and her death

Summary of this case from Wilton Reassurance Life Co. of N.Y. v. Garbrecht

Opinion

February 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court's finding that the insured did not substantially comply with the requirements of her life insurance policies in order to effectuate a change of beneficiary ( see, Schoenholz v. New York Life Ins. Co., 234 N.Y. 24). The insured allegedly requested a change of beneficiary form, but she completed it incorrectly before returning it to the plaintiff carrier. Although the insured was advised that the initial form she returned was unacceptable and a new form was sent to her to complete, she failed to fill out and return the new form in the month before her death, even though completion of the new form was within her power to accomplish ( see, Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Boni, 48 A.D.2d 621). Mere intent to charge a beneficiary is not enough ( see, Fink v. Fink, 171 N.Y. 616). Thus, the trial court properly concluded that a change of beneficiary had not been effected and that the surviving, named beneficiary was entitled to the proceeds.

Mangano, P.J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

concluding that the insured did not meet the standard because it was within the her power to resubmit the form the month between rejection of her request and her death

Summary of this case from Wilton Reassurance Life Co. of N.Y. v. Garbrecht

In John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co, the Court agreed with the trial court's finding "that the insured did not substantially comply with the requirements of her life insurance policies in order to effectuate a change of beneficiary" and that "the trial court properly concluded that a change of beneficiary had not been effected and that the surviving, named beneficiary was entitled to the proceeds."

Summary of this case from Smith v. Marez
Case details for

John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McManus

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD McMANUS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 320

Citing Cases

Wilton Reassurance Life Co. of N.Y. v. Garbrecht

For example, in John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McManus, 247 A.D.2d 513, 513-14, 669 N.Y.S.2d 320, 321…

William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Coleman

Lahey v. Lahey, 174 N.Y. 146 (1903) The Defendant, Justina Coleman's reliance upon John Hancock Mut. Life…