Flood v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company

394 So. 2d 1311 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P resided with his wife and family in Louisiana. D received an application for life insurance purportedly bearing the signature of P. A policy of life insurance was issued, and Ellen Flood, the wife, was designated as the beneficiary. In August 1971, a change of ownership form was submitted purportedly bearing the signature of P and changing the ownership of the policy to Ellen Flood. P was murdered (in 1972) at the hands of his wife. P was poisoned by the use of arsenic. His wife was tried for his murder and convicted in 1973. D denied Mrs. Flood's request for payment of the insurance policy based upon her being charged with her husband's death. It returned all premiums to Mrs. Flood. P's estate made a demand for payment for the benefit of the minor child of Richard and Ellen Flood. It was denied in that the policy had been obtained through the forgery and fraud of Mrs. Flood. P sued D. The theory of P's case was that the policy of insurance is valid because D is estopped from denying coverage when, as here, its agent has signed the application purporting to witness the signature of the insured. The agent testified that Mrs. Flood presented him with an application which she represented was signed by her husband. Acting upon that representation, he testified that he signed his name as a witness to the signature. He further admitted that the change of ownership form, which changed ownership of the policy from Mr. Flood to Mrs. Flood, bore a signature purporting to be that of Mr. Flood which wasn't witnessed by him; that all transactions concerning the policy of life insurance herein complained of were handled by Mrs. Flood. D's expert witness testified that the handwriting did not match P’s handwriting. From the criminal trial, there was evidence that Mrs. Flood had inquired with an insurance agency as to whether she could purchase a $100,000 policy on her husband without his knowledge, and learned she could not. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of P in the amount of $9,000.00; there was no direct proof that P had not known of the policy or that Mrs. Flood was going to murder him for the insurance money. D appealed.