Opinion
3:21-CV-00212-BSM
01-08-2024
JULIE A. WITT PLAINTIFF v. CHANTILLY S. REDDMANN DEFENDANT
ORDER
This case was tried to the bench on January 8, 2024. Having listened to the testimony and reviewed the exhibits introduced into evidence, judgment is entered for Chantilly S. Reddmann, and the Clerk of Court is directed to send the $9,970.68, plus interest accrued, deposited in the registry of the court by the Baltimore Life Insurance Company for Policy Number A 1073088 to Chantilly S. Reddmann.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
John S. Reddmann purchased a whole life insurance policy with Baltimore Life Insurance Company on January 15, 2009, and named Chantilly S. Reddmann, his only daughter, as his beneficiary. Exhibit 1. On April 24, 2018, John named Chantilly as his power of attorney. Exhibit 2. On April 20, 2020, Baltimore Life received a Beneficiary/Name/Address Change Form purporting to change John's beneficiary designation, and naming Julie A. Witt as the beneficiary of the policy. This designation form was not authenticated at trial and is therefore not in evidence.
In addition to trial exhibits 1 and 2 (the only documents received into evidence at trial), the uncontested testimony of Chantilly is that John did not possess the intent or mental capacity to strike her as a beneficiary of his policy or to name Witt as the beneficiary.
The rights of designated beneficiaries of insurance policies are determined according to contractual law. Allen v. First Nat. Bank of Fort Smith, 261 Ark. 230, 235, 547 S.W.2d 118, 120 (1977). When the holder of a life insurance policy expresses his intention in a written instrument in clear and unambiguous language, the agreement is construed according to its plain meaning. See Acklin v. Riddell, 42 Ark.App. 230, 234, 856 S.W.2d 322, 324 (1993) (citing C. & A. Constr. Co. v. Benning Constr. Co., 256 Ark. 621, 509 S.W.2d 302 (1974)). The holder of a life insurance policy may change the beneficiary in the manner and mode prescribed by the policy. Nunnenman v. Est. of Grubbs, 2010 Ark.App. 75, at 3, 374 S.W.3d 75, 78. Substantial compliance with the policy's procedures is required to change a beneficiary. James v. Mounts, 2023 Ark. 53, at 11, 660 S.W.3d 801, 808.
In a bench trial, the court bases its findings on admissible evidence only. See Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 69-70 (2012). The only evidence received at trial are exhibits 1 and 2 and the uncontested testimony of Chantilly S. Reddmann. Based on this evidence, Chantilly S. Reddmann is the beneficiary of Policy Number A 1073088, John B. Reddmann's life insurance policy with the Baltimore Life Insurance Company.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered for Chantilly S. Reddmann. The Clerk of Court is directed to pay the $9,970.68, plus interest accrued, deposited into the registry of the court by the Baltimore Life Insurance Company, to Chantilly S. Reddmann.
IT IS SO ORDERED.