A federal judge, in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Teixeira, refused to allow Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to remove itself from a litigation triangle between the company and a decedent’s wife and girlfriend. Metlife filed with the court in 2016 anticipating the court would make the determination as to whether the company owed the wife or the girlfriend $40,000 from the decedent’s life insurance policy. The decedent-insured named his wife as the beneficiary of the policy over the phone. Later, he changed the beneficiary to his girlfriend via another phone call. This was in violation of Metlife’s own policies requiring beneficiary designations to be done in writing. Part of the cause for the judge’s refusal to dismiss Metlife stemmed from the company’s atypical handling of the situation that leaves it open to liability for negligence.
See Jacklyn Wille, MetLife Stuck Between Wife and Girlfriend in Benefit Battle, BNA Convergence, September 11, 2017.
Special thanks to Naomi Cahn (Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, George Washington University School of Law) for bringing this article to my attention.
