Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke

Texas Supreme Court

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke

621 S.W.2d 596, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 589, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 343

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1981

DocketC-467

StatusPublished

Cited by45 cases

This text of 621 S.W.2d 596 (Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke, 621 S.W.2d 596, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 589, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 343 (Tex. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Insured, Riley P. Burke, brought suit against Prudential Insurance Company seeking to compel Prudential to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Although the policy expressly granted Burke this right, Prudential refused to affect the change because the named beneficiary was Burke’s former wife and her interest in the policy had not been resolved in the divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court declaring that Prudential had the duty to change the beneficiary and allowing Burke a recovery of his attorney’s fees. 614 S.W.2d 847.

The Court of Civil Appeals has correctly decided the case. A collateral issue, not material to the disposition of the present case, is the extent of a spouse’s community property interest in an unmatured insurance policy, purchased with community property funds, but not mentioned in the property division of the divorce decree. We reserve this question for determination in the appropriate case. Prudential’s Application for Writ of Error is refused, no reversible error.

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

PER CURIAM.

Insured, Riley P. Burke, brought suit against Prudential Insurance Company seeking to compel Prudential to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Although the policy expressly granted Burke this right, Prudential refused to affect the change because the named beneficiary was Burke’s former wife and her interest in the policy had not been resolved in the divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court declaring that Prudential had the duty to change the beneficiary and allowing Burke a recovery of his attorney’s fees. 614 S.W.2d 847.

The Court of Civil Appeals has correctly decided the case. A collateral issue, not material to the disposition of the present case, is the extent of a spouse’s community property interest in an unmatured insurance policy, purchased with community property funds, but not mentioned in the property division of the divorce decree. We reserve this question for determination in the appropriate case. Prudential’s Application for Writ of Error is refused, no reversible error.

Judy Allen, Independent Administratrix of the Estate of Marvin Fred Allen and Individually as the Surviving Spouse, and Michael Allen and Cory Allen AND United of Omaha Life Insurance Company v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, Thomas Pace, Steven Anderson, Alan Curry, Worldwide Resources, Incorporated, Richard R. Murphey, Jr., and Creditwatch Services, Ltd., as Successor in Interest to Creditwatch Services, LLC AND Creditwatch Services

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007

Tooke v. City of Mexia

197 S.W.3d 325 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)

Judy Tooke and Everett Tooke D/B/A Tooke and Sons and D/B/A Nature's Way Organic Landscaping v. the City of Mexia

Texas Supreme Court, 2006

State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Martinez

174 S.W.3d 772 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Anton v. Merrill Lynch

36 S.W.3d 251 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Grapevine Excavation v. Maryland Lloyds

35 S.W.3d 1 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Alida M. Anton v. Merrill Lynch and Russell Norwood, Individually

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001

Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. Grapevine Excavation Inc., Grapevine Excavation Inc., - Third Party v. Maryland Lloyds, a Lloyds Insurance Company, Third Party

197 F.3d 720 (Third Circuit, 2000)

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Grapevine Excavation Inc.

197 F.3d 720 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)

Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc.

982 S.W.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Whitehead v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

952 S.W.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Street v. Skipper

887 S.W.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)

Union Bankers Insurance Co. v. Shelton

889 S.W.2d 278 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)

Novosad v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.

881 S.W.2d 546 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)

American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. McInnis Book Store, Inc.

860 S.W.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc.

975 F.2d 1130 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)

Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc.

Fifth Circuit, 1992

Rodgers v. RAB Investments, Ltd.

816 S.W.2d 543 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Sadler v. Duvall

815 S.W.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 S.W.2d 596, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 589, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-insurance-co-of-america-v-burke-tex-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack