## Facts

- Joseph Cordner was insured under a group life insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan).
- Cordner and his former wife, Patricia Ann Lundeen, had two children, Maureen and Michael.
- While married to Lundeen, Cordner designated Maureen and Michael as the policy beneficiaries.
- After Cordner divorced Lundeen, he married France Cordner.
- Cordner later died, and Lundeen sued Metropolitan on the children’s behalf to recover the policy proceeds based on the earlier beneficiary designation.
- Metropolitan answered that there were adverse claims to the proceeds.
- Northwestern, the trustee under Cordner’s will, was brought into the case, and France Cordner intervened claiming that Cordner had changed the beneficiary designation in her favor.
- France submitted written materials and affidavits to show a beneficiary change, including:
  - A letter from Cordner’s attorney to Cordner discussing the type of form needed to change beneficiaries.
  - An affidavit from Cordner’s attorney stating Cordner told him he wanted to change the beneficiary designation.
  - Affidavits from Harold Burks, an employee of Cordner’s former employer, stating that Cordner executed the necessary paperwork to name France as beneficiary and that the papers were forwarded for filing but later could not be located.
- Lundeen submitted no evidence contradicting the claimed execution and filing of the change documents; her submission generally asserted Cordner’s interest in the children’s welfare.
- The district court granted France Cordner summary judgment, and Lundeen appealed, arguing that factual disputes remained and that she should be allowed to cross-examine Burks at trial because his affidavits were important to the ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper where the intervenor supported a claimed change of life-insurance beneficiary with affidavits and exhibits, and the plaintiff offered no contradictory evidence but argued she needed a trial to cross-examine an affiant.
2. Whether the asserted beneficiary change could be treated as effective despite the inability to locate the change-of-beneficiary forms, where affidavits indicated the insured executed and submitted the paperwork.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for France Cordner.
- The court held that Lundeen failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact because she produced no evidence contradicting the affidavits and documents indicating Cordner changed the beneficiary designation.
- The court rejected the argument that summary judgment was improper simply because Lundeen wished to test Burks’s credibility through cross-examination at trial.
- The court accepted that the beneficiary change could be enforced even though the relevant forms could not be found, given the showing that Cordner executed and submitted the required paperwork and the remaining steps were administrative.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 56, once the moving party supports a summary-judgment motion with competent materials, the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; reliance on allegations or general assertions is not enough.
- A party cannot avoid summary judgment merely by claiming that cross-examination might impeach an affiant, without producing evidence that contradicts the affiant’s statements or otherwise shows a real factual dispute.
- In life-insurance beneficiary disputes, courts may give effect to an insured’s intended change when the insured has taken the steps within his control to make the change and any failure to complete the change results from administrative handling, loss, or similar non-substantive errors.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment awarding the proceeds to France Cordner because the record—letters, attorney testimony, and employer-employee affidavits—supported that Joseph Cordner executed and submitted a beneficiary-change request, while Lundeen offered no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute and could not defeat summary judgment through a speculative request to cross-examine a key affiant.


Lundeen v. Cordner, 354 F.2d 401 (1966)