Bowens v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Bowens v. United States

184 F.2d 730, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3180

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1950

Docket13185

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 F.2d 730 (Bowens v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowens v. United States, 184 F.2d 730, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3180 (5th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

McCORD PER CURIAM.

A careful consideration of the entire record evidence in this case leads us unerringly to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court was correct and should be sustained. As the district court held, a distinction should be drawn in such' cases between mere applications for additional insurance, and a clear and unequivocal request to change insurance benefits from one beneficiary to another. Here, the evidence wholly fails to reveal that at the time the deceased filled out the applications for the additional $9,000 insurance in favor of his mother, that he was aware the maximum amount of additional National Service Life Insurance to which he was then entitled was only $5,000. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever that at the time he filled out the last three applications the deceased realized that his request for the additional $9,000 insurance benefit could be granted only by depriving his wife and child of the $4000 insurance benefit already taken out in their favor. The record nowhere ajffirmatively reveals that the deceased even had the $4000 insurance benefit already effective in favor of his wife in mind when he filed the applications for the additional $9,000 on behalf of his mother, and in the absence of any affirmative proof as to his intentions in this regard we are not permitted to indulge in speculation and guess as to the motives which impelled him to act as he did. Upon this record, the most that could be said is that the intention of the insured, as revealed by the last three applications which he filed, was manifestly equivocal in nature, and that is wholly insufficient to effect a valid change of beneficiary as to the $4000 insurance benefit here in dispute. See Bradley v. U. S., 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573; Leahy v. U. S., 9 Cir., 15 F.2d 949.

*731 The case of Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857, is readily distinguishable under its own facts, and is in nowise applicable or controlling in favor of appellant here.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McCORD PER CURIAM.

A careful consideration of the entire record evidence in this case leads us unerringly to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court was correct and should be sustained. As the district court held, a distinction should be drawn in such' cases between mere applications for additional insurance, and a clear and unequivocal request to change insurance benefits from one beneficiary to another. Here, the evidence wholly fails to reveal that at the time the deceased filled out the applications for the additional $9,000 insurance in favor of his mother, that he was aware the maximum amount of additional National Service Life Insurance to which he was then entitled was only $5,000. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever that at the time he filled out the last three applications the deceased realized that his request for the additional $9,000 insurance benefit could be granted only by depriving his wife and child of the $4000 insurance benefit already taken out in their favor. The record nowhere ajffirmatively reveals that the deceased even had the $4000 insurance benefit already effective in favor of his wife in mind when he filed the applications for the additional $9,000 on behalf of his mother, and in the absence of any affirmative proof as to his intentions in this regard we are not permitted to indulge in speculation and guess as to the motives which impelled him to act as he did. Upon this record, the most that could be said is that the intention of the insured, as revealed by the last three applications which he filed, was manifestly equivocal in nature, and that is wholly insufficient to effect a valid change of beneficiary as to the $4000 insurance benefit here in dispute. See Bradley v. U. S., 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573; Leahy v. U. S., 9 Cir., 15 F.2d 949.

*731 The case of Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857, is readily distinguishable under its own facts, and is in nowise applicable or controlling in favor of appellant here.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F.2d 730, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowens-v-united-states-ca5-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack