Supreme Court of Alabama
West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida
Joe West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida
547 So. 2d 870
Decided June 23, 1989
Good LawGood law: 52 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer and its agent. The record showed no contract between the plaintiffs and the agent, and the policy required a written assignment to be filed with the insurer; no such filing was shown. The evidence therefore did not permit a fair-minded factfinder to reach a different result.
Holdings
- Whether summary judgment was proper for the insurer’s agent when the record showed no contract between the agent and the plaintiffs.. Summary judgment for the agent was proper because the record contained no evidence that the agent entered into a contract with either plaintiff. 871
- Whether the evidence of an alleged assignment created a triable issue when the policy required a written assignment to be filed with the insurer and no filing was shown.. The alleged assignment did not create a triable issue because the policy required a written notice of assignment to be filed with the insurer, and the record showed no such filing. 871-872
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
1,765 opinions cite this case
Cited
Jeanetta Scott, as administratrix of the Estate of Willie C. Scott v. Jimmy C. Scott (Appeal from Pike Circuit…. The court cites West to explain the standard for substantial evidence in a summary‑judgment review.
Cited
Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center and Gulf Health Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Thomas…. The Court defined substantial evidence per West v. Founders Life Assurance Co.
Cited
Barbara Lane, as Administrator of the Estate of Ora Sullins v. Main and Associates, Inc., D/b/a Southern Springs…, 270 So. 3d 270. provides the definition of "substantial evidence" used to assess summary‑judgment proof
Cited
Sherri Hurst v. Rankin Sneed, as Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of Brenda M. Ray, 229 So. 3d 215. Citing West for definition of substantial evidence
Cited
Sherri Hurst v. Rankin Sneed, as Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of Brenda M. Ray, 229 So. 3d 215. Citing West for definition of substantial evidence
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiffs Joe West and Elender Sanders, as administratrix of the estate of Susan P. West,1 appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, Founders Life Assurance Company of Florida *Page 871 ("Founders Life") and its agent, James H. Hudson. This case involves an alleged breach of a contract of insurance occurring when Founders Life tendered the proceeds of the policy to Mary Emma West.2
In 1969, Founders Life, through its agent, Hudson, issued a policy of life insurance to Terriel West. Terriel's brother Joe was designated as primary beneficiary, and his sister Susan was designated as contingent beneficiary. (Susan died during the pendency of this lawsuit and her interests are now represented by her administratrix, Elender Sanders.) At some time thereafter, Terriel told Hudson that the original policy had been lost, but that he wished to change his primary beneficiary. The policy provides that such a change "shall take effect only when endorsed on the Policy by the Company." Nevertheless, Hudson provided Terriel with the proper forms to change the primary beneficiary.
In 1980, Terriel again wished to changed beneficiaries, and Hudson again furnished the proper forms. This time, Terriel designated his wife, Mary Emma, as the primary beneficiary and his estate as the contingent beneficiary. After Terriel died, Founders Life paid the proceeds of the policy to Mary Emma.
Joe and Susan filed suit against Founders Life and Hudson, claiming that Terriel had assigned the policy to them, that the changes in beneficiaries were invalid because they were not accomplished according to the terms of the contract, and that, therefore, they were entitled to the proceeds of the policy. In response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Joe testified by affidavit that Hudson knew that Terriel had delivered the original policy to him in exchange for valuable consideration. This, Joe argues, creates a factual issue as to whether an assignment was made; therefore, he contends, the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment. We disagree.
First, there is nothing in the record showing that Hudson ever entered into any contract with Joe or Susan. Accordingly, summary judgment as to Hudson was properly entered.
Second, the policy provides that any change in beneficiary "shall be subject to the rights of any assignee of record with the Company." Furthermore, the policy provides that "no assignment [of the policy] shall be binding upon the Company until the original or a duplicate thereof has been filed at the Home Office of the Company." Thus, the policy obviously contemplates that, to be valid, any assignments must be in writing and must be filed with Founders Life.
We have held that in order to prove that a valid assignment has been made, there must be a showing that the alleged assignor intended to make an assignment and that he did some act that would indicate a transfer of his rights. Russell v.Birmingham Oxygen Service, Inc., 408 So.2d 90, 93 (Ala. 1981). By the terms of the policy here involved, the act, or the manifestation of the intent to assign, in order to be binding on the company, was required to be in the form of a written notice of the assignment filed with Founders Life. Nothing in the record indicates that such a notice was filed.
This action was commenced after June 11, 1987; therefore, the "substantial evidence rule," codified at Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp. 1988), applies. As stated by Justice Jones, substantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.Rowden v. Tomlinson, 538 So.2d 15, 19 (Ala. 1988) (Jones, J., concurring). We conclude, based on the record before us, that fair-minded persons exercising impartial judgment could reach but one result — that reached by the trial court. *Page 872
Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Founders Life and Hudson is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
JONES, SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Slade747 So. 2d 293 (1999)
- T. Denny Sanford, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Colleen Anderson Sanford, Defendant and Appellant2005 S.D. LEXIS 34 (2005)
- Anderson, and v. Ceccardi, and Cross-Appellee6 Ohio St. 3d 110 (1983)
- Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Cable Media of Puerto Rico, Inc. y otro2025 TSPR 1 (2025)
- Paul H. Smith, Petitioners v. Thomas O’donnell52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 958 (2009)