Kimble

Kimble v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
969 F. Supp. 599·97 Daily Journal DAR 12781·1997 WL 391735·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9714
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 1997Civ. S-95-2329 WBS/JFMCalifornia2,711 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs sole claim for declaratory relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff Julie Kimble also moves for summary judgment on this claim. Id.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed. Robert Kimble (“Kimble”), now deceased, was a participant in the MetLife Insurance and Retirement Program. On or about December 10, 1991, Kimble filled out a designation of beneficiaries form (“the form”) for the group life insurance coverage offered by MetLife as part of its employee benefits plan. The life insurance policy was to pay $88,000 to Kimble’s designated primary beneficiaries.

The front of the form states “I hereby designate as my beneficiary for my Group Life Insurance coverage ...” (Jackson Decl. Ex. A.) Below this statement, Kimble inserted the name of his wife, plaintiff Julie Kimble. The form, however, further stated that “[i]f more than one beneficiary is designated, use either A or B on the reverse side.” (Id.)

The reverse side of the form is entitled “Additional Group Life Beneficiaries (Complete either A or B).” The caption to section A states “I hereby designate as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.