Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson

    500 F. Supp. 3d 881 (D. Neb. 2020)

    The general rule in Nebraska is "that divorce does not affect a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy." Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co. , 264 Neb. 312, 317, 647 N.W.2d 85, 89 (2002). However, parties to a divorce may waive their expectancy interests as designated beneficiaries as part of their divorce proceedings.

  2. Rice v. Webb

    287 Neb. 712 (Neb. 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Finding waiver where decree awarded former spouse "all interest ... free from any claim of [the other spouse]"

    The district court filed its “Judgment of Enforcement of Decree” on April 23, 2013, in which it agreed with the personal representative of Dale's estate that Brenda had relinquished her beneficiary interest in Dale's life insurance policies, and it rejected Brenda's contentions to the contrary. The district court relied on Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002), and concluded that the property settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous. The court determined that under the property settlement agreement, Brenda and Dale intended to relinquish their beneficiary and ownership interests in each other's life insurance policies and retirement accounts.

  3. Trueblood v. Roberts

    15 Neb. App. 579 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times
    In Trueblood, the appellate court addressed the beneficiary interest of a divorced spouse who remained primary beneficiary on the deceased former spouse's life insurance policy.

    [3, 4] Under Nebraska law, the general rule is that divorce does not affect a beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). This rule is based on the notion that the beneficiary's claim to the proceeds evolves from the terms of the policy rather than the status of the marital relationship.

  4. Eich v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co.

    No. A-12-166 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2012)

    In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue of material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1, 701 N.W.2d 320 (2005); Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., supra; Trueblood v. Roberts, 15 Neb. App. 579, 732 N.W.2d 368 (2007).

  5. Strong v. Omaha

    270 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    In Strong v. Omaha Constr. Indus. Pension Plan, 270 Neb. 1, 701 N.W.2d 320 (2005), regarding interpretations of federal law, the Nebraska Supreme Court explained that while Nebraska courts must treat U.S. Supreme Court decisions as binding authority, lower federal court decisions are only persuasive authority.

    Under Nebraska law, the general rule is that divorce, per se, does not affect a beneficiary designation in a non-ERISA life insurance policy, IRA, annuity, or similar financial investment. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). But a spouse may waive such a beneficiary interest in a divorce decree.

  6. Sadler v. Van Buskirk

    478 S.W.3d 379 (Ky. 2015)   Cited 12 times
    In Sadler, a divorcing couple entered into a separation agreement that stated, "[t]he parties mutually agree to make no claim upon any interest owned by the other, now or in the future, in the current accounts and any life insurance.... "

    DeRyke v. Teets, 288 Ga. 160, 702 S.E.2d 205, 207 (2010) (citations omitted).In Pinkard v. Confederation Life Insurance Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85, 89–90 (2002), the Nebraska Supreme Court held: “If the dissolution decree and any property settlement agreement incorporated therein manifest the parties' intent to relinquish all property rights, then such agreement should be given that effect. We make no distinction among IRA's, life insurance proceeds, or other types of annuities that designate the beneficiary.

  7. Hamilton v. Nestor

    265 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2003)   Cited 25 times
    In Hamilton, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that where a party suffered no physical injuries, but alleged only “mental and psychological injuries” resulting from a party's negligence, the stated claim was for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. R.W. v. Schrein, 264 Neb. 818, 652 N.W.2d 574 (2002); Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). ANALYSIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS ACTION

  8. R.W. v. Schrein

    264 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that the meaning of a word in a contract “is a question of law, on which expert testimony has no bearing”

    [1,2] Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., ante p. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.

  9. Spracklin v. Spracklin

    21 Neb. App. 271 (Neb. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Pinkard v. Confederation Life Ins. Co., 264 Neb. 312, 647 N.W.2d 85 (2002). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue of material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.