Mayo v. Hartford Life Insurance Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
354 F.3d 400 (2004)
- Written by Genan Zilkha, JD
Facts
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart) (defendant) established a company-owned life-insurance (COLI) program. Through this program, Walmart obtained COLI policies that insured the lives of its employees. Walmart was the beneficiary of these COLI policies. Walmart employees would be covered by the COLI policies, unless they opted out of a related program that provided them with special death benefits. Walmart discontinued the COLI program in 1998. Douglas Sims was an employee of Walmart from 1987 until he died in 1998. Sims was insured under a COLI policy. Sims’s estate (plaintiff) learned about the COLI policy. The estate then sued Walmart, claiming Walmart had violated the Texas insurable-interest doctrine. The estate sought a declaratory judgment of its rights under Sims’s COLI policy, the imposition of a constructive trust, and disgorgement of the funds that Walmart received from Sims’s COLI policy. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the estate and denied Walmart’s motion for summary judgment. The district court held that Walmart’s COLI policy was void, because Walmart did not have insurable interests in the lives of its regular employees. Walmart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jolly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.