- Amount
- $100,000 (registry funds awarded to our client)
- Counsel
- Interpleader Law
- Result for
- The insured's wife, the named primary beneficiary, our client
- Case
- Primerica Life Insurance Co. v. Wiggins
- Court
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
- Docket
- No. 1:18-cv-00523-MAC
- Decided
- May 3, 2020
- Issue
- What evidence a challenger needs to set aside a beneficiary change for forgery, incapacity or undue influence under Texas law
While hospitalized, the insured signed a change form naming his longtime companion, then his fiancée, as primary beneficiary of a $100,000 policy, replacing his son. The couple married shortly before he died. The son and the wife both claimed the proceeds, the insurer interpleaded, and the court realigned the case with the son as plaintiff because he had to prove the change invalid.
We represented the wife. The son argued that his father did not make the change, that he lacked capacity and that he was unduly influenced. We supported the change with our client’s account of the signing, a notarized power of attorney the insured signed two days later and a video of him answering questions about it. The son offered no witnesses, medical records or handwriting analysis. The court held that his fraud allegations were too vague, that nothing created a genuine dispute about the signature, that Texas presumes capacity and suspicion does not overcome it, and that his undue influence claim rested only on opportunity and his own opinion.
The court granted summary judgment, ordered that the son take nothing, and awarded the registry funds to our client.
What it shows. A late-life change, a hospital signing and an imperfect form raise questions, but the person challenging the change must answer them with evidence.
Read the court's order
- Memorandum and order granting summary judgment (May 3, 2020) (PDF)
- Final judgment (May 6, 2020) (PDF)
For a detailed legal summary of this decision, see interpleader.com's decisions library.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This summary describes the court's ruling; it is not legal advice about any other case.
Back to all results · Interpleader lawsuits · Beneficiary disputes