Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Richardson
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Decided April 10, 1939No. 20PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PORTERIE, District Judge.
The Court is of the view that paragraph 9 as to change of beneficiary in Group Contract No. 103 is not an exclusive manner of effecting a change of beneficiary; that the provisions of said paragraph are mainly for the business facility of the insuring company and the insured, and certainly not a right to the beneficiary at will; and that what transpired in the way of a change of beneficiary according to the facts of this case, namely, the assignment of the policy in the judgment of divorce, though not filed as a written notice to the insuring company, is a valid…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Boseman v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Aetna Life Insurance v. DunkenSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Arrington v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad TrainmenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Murphy v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Sandra Joanne Murphy, Plaintiff-Third Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross v. The Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Barbara A. Murphy, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Minors Lee S. Murphy, Etc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- United Benefit Life Insurance v. PriceWashington Supreme Court · 1955
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. RaderDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1951
- Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. CummingsDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.