AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A Memorandum and Order having been filed in this matter on March 12, 1969, and since that date it having been brought to the attention of the court that *159 the addition of certain language to lines 31 and 32, page 1 of the Memorandum and Order, which clarify and more readily identify the subject matter of the Memorandum and Order, and good cause appearing, the aforementioned Memorandum and Order is amended to read as follows:

This is an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (sued herein as Office of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance) moves for summary judgment. The facts are as follows. Robert H. Edgington died on October 14, 1967. At the time of his death he was employed at the San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California, and insured under a group life insurance policy issued to the United States Civil Service Commission by defendant pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 and administered by the Office of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance. The decedent designated no beneficiary on the policy but in a holographic will admitted to probate he designated plaintiff, a friend, as beneficiary. Claims to the proceeds of the policy have also been filed by three surviving sons and the former spouse of decedent. Plaintiff was not related to the decedent in any way.

The only dispute in this case is over the interpretation of 5 U.S.C.A. § 8705 (a) which provides

The italicized words were added by amendment in 1966. ( 80 Stat. 78 (1966).) In a case decided before the amendment, on facts similar to the instant case, a court decided that designation of beneficiary in a holographic will was sufficient to entitle the designee to the life insurance proceeds. Sears v. Austin, 292 F.2d 690 (9th Cir. 1961).

The amendment was passed for the purpose of avoiding the Sears result. Defendant cites the Congressional Record —Senate for March 14, 1966, in which the purpose of the amendment is explained:

It is undisputed that the decedent in this case did not file a designation of beneficiary in the form required by the statute. In light of the clear statement of Congressional intent, plaintiff’s appeal to equitable principles is futile.

There being no genuine issue as to any material fact and it being apparent that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

*160 It is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted and that judgment for defendant Office of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance be rendered in this case.