From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Engelman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Supreme Court of Connecticut
690 A.2d 882 (1997)
In 1961, the decedent, Ella Ryder, obtained a life-insurance policy from Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLI) (defendant). CGLI required that the policy owner seeking to change the policy beneficiary file “with the home office a written request therefore on a form satisfactory to the company and signed by the owner.” The change in beneficiary also had to be recorded by CGLI. Ryder named her husband as the policy beneficiary and her nephew as the contingent beneficiary. After her husband’s death, Ryder, as policy owner, could change the beneficiary. In 1977, Ryder asked her attorney, Robert Engelman (plaintiff), to change her estate plan. Ryder wrote to CGLI and asked CGLI to prepare and send a change-of-beneficiary form, making Ryder’s estate the beneficiary. CGLI never did. In 1979, Ryder sent a letter that she had signed, and Engelman had prepared and witnessed, changing her policy beneficiary. The letter included Ryder’s policy name and number. CGLI received the letter. Instead of recording the change, CGLI sent Ryder a change-of-beneficiary form and included a cover letter notifying Ryder that the policy would not be changed unless the form was dated, signed, witnessed, and returned to CGLI. Ryder never returned the form. Ryder paid her insurance premiums until she died. Engelman, who was the executor of Ryder’s estate, completed a CGLI claim form requesting that Ryder’s life-insurance policy proceeds be paid to him as executor. CGLI refused and formally denied Engelman’s claim, because, it maintained, Ryder had not requested the policy-beneficiary change on CGLI’s forms. Therefore, Ryder had not complied with CGLI’s beneficiary-change requirement. CGLI admitted that Ryder’s previous letter changing the policy beneficiary had complied with the formalities of CGLI’s requirement and that her intent was to change her policy beneficiary. Engelman sued CGLI, claiming that CGLI had violated state law and breached the life-insurance contract. The trial court entered judgment in favor of CGLI, finding that Ryder had not requested the beneficiary change on CGLI’s form.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Berdon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.