You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Davenport v. Servicemen's Group Life Insurance

Citations: 168 S.E.2d 621; 119 Ga. App. 685; 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1214Docket: 44457

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; May 15, 1969; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a dispute over the proceeds of a deceased soldier's Servicemen's Group Life Insurance policy, with the primary issue being the validity of the beneficiary designation under conflicting state and federal laws. The soldier had named Brenda Gail Mann as the sole beneficiary. Following his death in combat, his family contested the designation, asserting it was invalid under state law due to a lack of insurable interest. The court examined whether state law or federal law governs the qualifications for beneficiaries. It upheld the federal law's supremacy, confirming that servicemen can designate any beneficiary regardless of state insurable interest requirements. The court found no evidence to support a change of beneficiary from Mann to another party, as no written documentation or affirmative action was taken by the deceased. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mann was affirmed, reinforcing the precedence of federal statutes over state law in military insurance designations and recognizing the soldier's right to choose a beneficiary freely. Additionally, Mann's engagement to the deceased was noted as potentially establishing an insurable interest, further supporting her claim to the insurance proceeds.

Legal Issues Addressed

Federal Preemption over State Law in Beneficiary Designations

Application: Federal law prevails over state law regarding the designation of beneficiaries for Servicemen's Group Life Insurance, allowing servicemen to name any beneficiary without adhering to state insurable interest requirements.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that there are no restrictions on a serviceman's right to designate or change beneficiaries, making such designations absolute.

Insurable Interest and Engagement

Application: An engagement may establish an insurable interest in the life of the deceased under certain legal precedents.

Reasoning: Miss Mann stated in her affidavit that she and the deceased were engaged, which would grant her an insurable interest in his life, as referenced in legal precedents.

Requirements for Changing Beneficiary Designations

Application: To change a designated beneficiary, there must be clear evidence of intent and some affirmative action by the insured, typically requiring written documentation.

Reasoning: There was no written change signed by the insured, as required by federal regulations.

Right of Minors to Designate Beneficiaries under Federal Law

Application: Federal law allows minors in the armed services to designate beneficiaries without parental consent, overriding state restrictions.

Reasoning: Congress did not impose limitations on minors regarding their ability to designate beneficiaries for military insurance, explicitly granting minors the right to do so under federal law.