## Facts

- Douglas D. Cook bought a whole-life insurance policy from Equitable Life Assurance Society and designated his then-wife, Doris J. Cook Combs, as beneficiary.
- The policy allowed beneficiary changes only by written notice to the insurer, effective only upon endorsement on the policy by the insurer.
- Douglas and Doris divorced; the divorce decree did not address the insurance policy and stated the parties’ agreement satisfied claims such as alimony, support, and maintenance.
- After Douglas stopped paying premiums, the policy converted to paid-up term insurance.
- Douglas later married Margaret A. Cook and had a son, Daniel J. Cook.
- Douglas executed a will leaving the Equitable policy proceeds to Margaret and Daniel, but he never provided written notice to Equitable and never obtained a policy endorsement changing the beneficiary.
- After Douglas died, Doris claimed the proceeds as named beneficiary; Margaret and Daniel claimed the proceeds under the will.
- Equitable filed an interpleader action and deposited the proceeds with the court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Doris; Margaret and Daniel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an insured can change a life-insurance beneficiary by a will when the policy requires a specific change procedure that was not followed.
2. Whether a divorce decree that does not mention the policy nonetheless eliminates an ex-spouse’s rights as the named beneficiary.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Doris.
- The court held the will did not effect a beneficiary change because Douglas did not comply with the policy’s required method (written notice and endorsement).
- The court rejected the argument that the divorce decree terminated Doris’s beneficiary status where the decree made no provision regarding the policy.

## Legal Principles

- When a life-insurance policy specifies an exclusive method to change beneficiaries, the insured must comply with that method for a change to be effective.
- A testamentary provision purporting to redirect life-insurance proceeds does not override policy change-of-beneficiary requirements absent compliance with the policy.
- A divorce decree that does not address a life-insurance policy generally does not, by itself, divest a named beneficiary of contractual rights under the policy.

## Conclusion

Because Douglas never gave Equitable the required written notice and never obtained an endorsement changing the beneficiary, Doris remained the lawful beneficiary despite the divorce and Douglas’s later will, and Margaret and Daniel were not entitled to the policy proceeds.


Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 428 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)