South Carolina court finds legitimate dispute regarding forgery claim
in Protective Life v. Henderson, a federal court in South Carolina considered a motion to dismiss the contest of a life insurance beneficiary designation. The court denied the motion, finding there was a legitimate dispute regarding whether the beneficiary designation was forged.
Background - The beneficiary designations
This case involved a dispute over whether Auman or Rose is entitled to the proceeds of a Protective life insurance policy (the Policy) on the life of Joseph Henderson (Joe).
On September 10, 1995: Protective Life Insurance issued the life insurance policy to Joe, with a primary beneficiary designation in favor of Joe's spouse at the time, Cari Henderson. Rose was Joe’s mother. Although Auman and Joe were at certain points in a romantic relationship, it appears they were never legally married. Rose was Joe’s mother.
December 6, 2012: Protective received a change of beneficiary form naming Rose as the primary beneficiary of the policy.
June 6, 2019: Protective received a "will questionnaire booklet" indicating that Auman should be designated as the primary beneficiary of Joe's estate and healthcare power of attorney. The form was mostly filled out by Auman but purportedly bears Joe's signature. Additionally, Protective received a change of beneficiary form for another insurance policy of Joe's with Mutual of Omaha, designating Auman as the irrevocable primary beneficiary. Auman completed the form, and Joe allegedly signed it.
June 7, 2019: Protective received a change of beneficiary form naming Auman as the primary beneficiary of the Protective life insurance policy. Auman completed the form, provided her contact information, changed the mailing address, and the form allegedly bears Joe's signature and a witness's signature.
June 20, 2019: A Protective employee flagged the policy for further review due to multiple beneficiary changes, but it is unclear if any review took place.
September 13, 2019: Joe and Auman were involved in a domestic dispute.
September 23, 2019: Joe contacted a law firm to create a will naming Rose as the personal representative and recipient of his personal effects and any remaining property.
September 25, 2019: Mutual of Omaha processed a change of beneficiary form filed by Joe, removing Auman and naming Rose as the primary beneficiary of the Mutual of Omaha policy.
September 25, 2019: Joe requested a change of beneficiary form from Protective.
October 14, 2019: Joe executed his will, which named Rose as the personal representative and recipient of his property, and it made no mention of Auman. It also named his son, Jordan Henderson, as a contingent representative and recipient in case Rose was disqualified or deceased.
February 9, 2021: Joe passed away.
February 16, 2021: Jordan sent an unsigned change of beneficiary form, filled out by Joe before his death, to Protective, listing Rose as the primary beneficiary and Jordan as the contingent beneficiary.
February 20, 2021: Protective informed Jordan by letter that Auman was the beneficiary of the policy.
Court decision
The court acknowledged that the designated beneficiary of a life insurance policy is generally entitled to the proceeds. However, in cases involving forgery of the decedent's signature, the beneficiary designation became ineffective, and the next most recent beneficiary designation takes precedence.
Rose, Joe's mother, attested in an affidavit that the signature on the beneficiary form submitted by Auman was not Joe's. Auman argued that Rose's affidavit was self-serving and insufficient to defeat summary judgment. While a plaintiff's self-serving opinion usually could not defeat summary judgment without objective corroboration, self-serving testimony based on personal knowledge or firsthand experience could create a genuine issue of material fact.
Rose's assertion that the signature was forged was an opinion but was based on her personal and firsthand experience as Joe's mother, having observed his signature. Rose also presented other circumstantial evidence to support an inference of fraud. Auman claimed that much of this additional evidence was inadmissible.
For instance, Rose attached an affidavit from Robert Reichert, who stated that Joe was shocked to discover letters from various life insurance companies naming Auman as the beneficiary. Reichert's affidavit contained some inadmissible hearsay, but the portions discussed in the court order appeared admissible. Reichert's testimony supported Rose's contention that Auman fraudulently changed the contact information attached to the policy and forged Joe's signature to make herself the beneficiary.
Furthermore, the evidence showed that Joe took steps to redesignate Rose as the beneficiary soon after Reichert said Joe discovered Auman's alleged duplicity. Joe requested change of beneficiary forms from Mutual of Omaha and Protective, submitted the Mutual of Omaha form, and changed his will to remove Auman.
Auman argued that Joe validly submitted the beneficiary form but reconsidered after their fight in September 2019. However, Auman failed to explain why the form bore a witness signature supposedly confirming Joe's signature. While Rose may have faced challenges at trial in explaining the witness signature and convincing a jury, the court, at the summary judgment stage, could not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.
Based on Rose's firsthand experience and the objective corroboration provided, the court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed. A reasonable jury could find that the beneficiary designation submitted by Auman was void, and Rose was entitled to the proceeds of the policy.
A forgery claim is common in a life insurance beneficiary contest. When faced with the competing claims, the life insurance company filed the interpleader lawsuit. If you are facing a life insurance beneficiary contest, call lawyer J. Michael Young at (800) 323-1857.
