Griffin v. McCoach

313 U.S. 498 (1941)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Griffin v. McCoach

United States Supreme Court
313 U.S. 498 (1941)

Facts

Texas citizen Robert Gordon persuaded seven persons, including John McCoach (defendant) (collectively, investors), to invest in Texas oil developments. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) (defendant) issued an insurance policy on Gordon’s life. The investors, who provided a significant amount of money to Gordon both before and after the policy was issued, paid the policy’s premiums. Initially, the investors were the policy beneficiaries, but the policy subsequently was amended so that, among other things, Gordon’s wife was to receive one-eighth of the death benefit, with the remaining death proceeds due to the investors (and their successors). Gordon signed the initial application for the policy in New York, the application was forwarded to Prudential’s New Jersey headquarters, and Prudential delivered the approved policy in New York. The policy amendments were accomplished via forms that were sent from New York to Texas, signed in Texas, sent to Prudential in New Jersey, and finally returned to New York. Upon Gordon’s death, the personal representatives of Gordon’s estate, including Griffin (plaintiff), sued Prudential in federal court in Texas, seeking to prevent the investors from receiving any of the policy’s death benefit. Federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. Prudential impleaded McCoach, who was the trustee for the investors (and their successors) and departed the case. Griffin argued, among other things, that (1) Texas law governed the amended policy, (2) Texas law required beneficiaries to have insurable interests in the decedent, and (3) the investors did not have insurable interests in Gordon when the amendments were made. Griffin further contended that a federal court sitting in Texas had to apply Texas’s public policy requiring policy beneficiaries to have insurable interests in the decedent. The investors countered that New York law, which may not have required beneficiaries to have insurable interests in the decedent, applied. The district court ruled that (1) New York law governed the dispute because the initial contract was made in New York and the amendments were delivered in New York and (2) the investors had insurable interests in Gordon’s life due to the parties’ debtor-creditor relationships. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that New York law governed because the initial policy was a New York contract and the amendments were made pursuant to provisions in the initial policy and thus could not have changed the governing law. The court of appeals further ruled that applying Texas law and policy would improperly extend Texas law beyond Texas. Griffin appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership