BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nFailure of Proposed Insured Stay Alive Until Policy Delivered Costs \\nFiance Almost $5 Million\\n\\nOn January 27, 2021, Dr. Travis Richardson completed an application for \\nan individual life \\ninsurance policy with Pacific Life seeking $4,816,949.00 in coverage. \\nBlevins was Dr. Richardson\'s fianc\\xe9 and was listed as the primary \\nbeneficiary of the policy. Lamar Breshears was the insurance agent for \\nPacific Life. Champion Agency (\\u201cChampion\\u201d) handled details. Dr. \\nRichardson died unexpectedly before the policy was delivered and the \\ninsurer refused to pay.\\n\\nIn Pacific Life Insurance Company v. Katie Blevins, No. 3:21-CV-00143 \\nJM, United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division (June\\n 15, 2023} the USDC resolved the claim of the beneficiary.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nOn February 1, 2021, Champion transmitted Dr. Richardson\'s application \\nto Pacific Life with the instructions to process the application and to \\nmail the policy to Champion at its office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. \\nPacific Life received Dr. Richardson\'s application on February 2, 2021. \\nOn March 11, 2021, Pacific Life\'s underwriting department approved Dr. \\nRichardson for Policy and the initial monthly premium of $16,668.68 was \\npaid.\\n\\nOn March 12, 2021, Dr. Richardson emailed Breshears and asked him when \\nthe policy was active. Breshears responded the same day, stating, \\n\\u201cToday. If you were to die today, the policy would pay out a death \\nbenefit.\\u201d Breshears was wrong because Dr. Richardson died unexpectedly \\non March 14, 2021.\\n\\nThe physical policy was received by Champion March 15, 2021. Pacific \\nLife refunded the initial premium payment on March 25, 2021, taking the \\nposition that the policy was not \\u201cin force\\u201d at the time of Dr. \\nRichardson\'s death because it had not been \\u201cdelivered\\u201d as required by \\nthe application and policy.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nIt was undisputed that delivery of the policy was a valid condition \\nprecedent to Blevins being entitled to receive payment under the policy.\\n The application states that: \\u201c[c]overage will take effect when the \\nPolicy is delivered and the entire first premium is paid only if at that\\n time each Proposed Insured is alive, and all answers in this \\nApplication are still true and complete.\\u201d (emphasis added.).\\n\\nThe policy, which incorporates the application, states that a Policy is \\nin effect and provides a Death Benefit on the Insured on the date the \\nPolicy and associated riders become effective. The Policy Date for this \\npolicy was March 11, 2021 a date before Dr. Richardson died.\\n\\nThe fact that the challenged terms are not defined does not make them \\nvague and ambiguous.\\n\\nBreshears testified that he understood delivery of the policy to mean \\n\\u201cphysically sending the policy to the client,\\u201d and that a \\u201chundred \\npercent of his policies have been delivered by paper.\\u201d Pacific Life has \\nestablished that it physically mailed the policy to Champion pursuant to\\n the instructions it received with the transmittal of Dr. Richardson\'s \\napplication. Included with the mailed policy were a delivery receipt and\\n an amendment to the application to correct minor inaccuracies. Blevins \\ndid not establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact on the \\nissue of constructive delivery of the policy.\\n\\n\\nThe Court has no doubt that Dr. Richardson, Breshears, and Blevins \\nbelieved that Dr. Richardson was covered under the policy as of March \\n11, 2021. However, \\xa0Pacific Life\'s motion for summary judgment\\xa0 was \\ngranted.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nPeople buy life insurance because they recognize that life is a disease \\nfrom which all humans suffer. We all, eventually, die. Dr. Richardson \\nwanted to protect his fiance and applied for a life insurance policy \\nthat he expected to have for many years only to die before the policy \\nwas delivered to him. Insurance policies must be read as a whole. In \\nthis case, the policy never came into effect because he was not alive \\nwhen the policy was delivered. A sad result but on its face a correct \\ndecision.\\n\\n