## Facts

- Under a settlement agreement, William White was entitled to receive $800 checks each month from Hartford Life Insurance Co. for the rest of his life.
- In spring 1994, White moved in with his brother and Thelma Simpson, and Hartford continued mailing the monthly checks to that household.
- Because White’s job kept him traveling, he arranged for Simpson to open his mail and deposit the checks on his behalf.
- In March 1995, Simpson told White that Hartford had sent a letter stating the checks were ending, and White did not contact Hartford to confirm.
- Hartford continued to mail checks as before, including through later changes in address associated with White’s brother and Simpson.
- In August 1996, White’s brother and Simpson moved to a different address. Hartford kept sending checks there, even though White did not live at that address.
- White did not discover until June 2005 that Hartford had never stopped sending the checks.
- After learning this, White filed criminal charges against Simpson and sued Hartford seeking the amounts he claimed he was owed under the settlement agreement but did not actually receive.
- White moved for summary judgment; Hartford opposed, arguing there were genuine fact disputes about whether Simpson acted as White’s agent and whether White had knowledge of Simpson’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment for White was proper when the record contained genuine disputes of material fact about Simpson’s authority to receive and deposit White’s checks (and White’s knowledge of, or responsibility for, her actions).
2. Whether Hartford was entitled to defeat summary judgment by showing factual disputes about whether its continued mailing of checks to addresses associated with Simpson and White’s brother satisfied Hartford’s payment obligations to White.

## Decision

- The court denied White’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court concluded that disputed facts—especially concerning agency/authority and White’s knowledge—prevented a determination as a matter of law that Hartford remained liable to White for the disputed checks.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when material facts are genuinely disputed and those disputes affect the elements of liability or defenses.
- Whether a person is authorized to receive or handle another’s checks may turn on fact questions about the parties’ relationship, the scope of permission given, and what the principal knew or should have known.
- In disputes involving checks and other negotiable instruments, questions about receipt, handling, and who bore the risk of loss from an intermediary’s conduct often require fact findings tied to authorization and notice.

## Conclusion

Because Hartford produced evidence raising triable questions about whether Simpson acted with White’s authority (and about what White knew regarding the continued checks), the court refused to enter judgment for White on summary judgment and left those fact questions for later resolution.


White v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., 66 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 796 (2008)