Jeradine Trahan v. State Farm Life Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

04-1427

JERADINE TRAHAN on behalf of the minor child ALEXIS NICOLE
BELLOW

VERSUS

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20032257
HONORABLE BYRON HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and J.
David Painter, Judges.

WRIT DENIED.

Stephen Dale Cronin
Henry Gerard Terhoeve
320 Somerulos Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Counsel for Defendant-Applicant:
State Farm Life Ins. Co.

Grady M. Spears
1001 W. Pinhook, Bldg. 3, Suite 308
Lafayette, LA 70503
Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent:
Jeradine Trahan on behalf of the minor child Alexis Nicole Bellow

PAINTER, Judge.

The Defendant, State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”), seeks

supervisory writs from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.

It urges us to find that no question of material fact remains concerning whether its

payment of life insurance proceeds conformed to the requirements of La.R.S. 22:643.

We deny the writ, finding that questions of fact remain in this regard.

FACTS

Prior to her death, Heather Bourgeois took out a policy of life insurance with

State Farm Insurance Company. The beneficiary of the policy was to be her minor

daughter, Alexis Nicole Bellow1, in care of the child’s maternal grandfather, Johnny

Bourgeois. The policy itself shows the primary beneficiary as Alexis Nicole Bellow

in/care of Johnny Bourgeois and the secondary beneficiary as Johnny Bourgeois.

Heather died on March 10, 2002.

On April 11, 2002, letters of tutorship issued recognizing Jeradine Trahan as

tutrix of Alexis. On May 7, 2002, State Farm issued a check for $50,325.17,

representing the proceeds of the life insurance policy, to “Johnny Bourgeois, informal

trustee of Alexis Nicole Bellow.” In his deposition, Mr. Bourgeois testified that he

did not tell Ms. Trahan about the existence of the policy. He further testified that after

receiving the check, he cashed it and spent it on a variety of consumable items, such

as tires and furniture, and gave $5,000.00 to each of his two surviving children.

Although he admitted knowing that the money was for Alexis, he stated that he did

not preserve the money for her because he had a grudge against Ms. Trahan.

1
Alexis was born on February 26, 1996, while Heather was married to Jerome Bellow, son
of Jeradine Trahan. Heather and Jerome were divorced prior to the time Heather obtained the life
insurance.

1

On April 29, 2003, Ms. Trahan, acting on behalf of Alexis, filed this suit

against State Farm alleging that it acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether Mr.

Bourgeois had met the legal requirements of a trustee or a tutor and in failing to take

steps to protect the interest of Alexis, the beneficiary. Therefore, she prayed that

State Farm be required to pay the damages resulting to Alexis from its negligence.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that no question of fact

remained but that its payment of the life insurance proceeds was in accord with the

terms of the policy as required to discharge it from other claims to the proceeds under

La.R.S. 22:643. The trial court denied the motion, finding that questions of fact

remain as to whether the insurer paid in accord with the terms of the policy. State

Farm applied for supervisory writs to this court asserting that the trial court erred in

so finding.

DISCUSSION

Appellate courts review grants of summary judgment de novo,
using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of
whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is a
genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Ocean Energy, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
Gov't, 04-0066 (La.7/6/04), 880 So.2d 1. The movant bears the burden
of proof. La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). If the movant meets this initial
burden, the burden then shifts to plaintiff to present factual support
adequate to establish that he will be able to satisfy the evidentiary
burden at trial. Richard v. Hall, 03-1488 (La.4/23/04), 874 So.2d 131,
137. Thereafter, if plaintiff fails to meet this burden, there is no genuine
issue of material fact and defendant is entitled to summary judgment as
a matter of law. Id. This court has recognized that a “genuine issue” is
a “triable issue,” an issue in which reasonable persons could disagree.
Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 03-1424 (La.4/14/04), 870 So.2d 1002,
1006 (citing Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94),
639 So.2d 730, 751). Further, this court has defined a “material fact” to
be one in which “its existence or nonexistence may be essential to
plaintiff's cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery.” Id.

Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211, pp.7-8 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So.2d. 773, 776-77.

2

In the case currently before this court, the Defendant asserts that no question

of fact remains but that it paid the policy proceeds as required by La.R.S. 22:643,

which provides that:

Whenever the proceeds of, or payments under a life endowment
or health and accident insurance policy or any annuity contract issued
by a life insurance company, heretofore or hereafter issued, become
payable and the insurer makes payment thereof in accordance with the
terms of the policy or contract or in accordance with any written
assignment thereof or of any interest thereunder, hereafter made, the
person then designated in the policy or contract or by such assignment
as being entitled thereto, shall be entitled to receive such proceeds or
payments and to give full acquittance therefor, and such payment shall
fully discharge the insurer from all claims under the policy or contract
unless, before payment is made, the insurer has received at its home
office, written notice by or on behalf of some other person that such
other person claims to be entitled to such payment or some interest in
the policy or contract. Nothing contained in this Section shall affect any
claim or right to any policy or contract or the proceeds thereof or
payments thereunder as between persons other than the insurer.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the trial judge correctly concluded

that a question of fact remains as to whether State Farm paid the designated

beneficiary “in accordance with the terms of the policy.”

After reviewing the appeal briefs, the record on appeal, with special attention

to the insurance policy, and after hearing the arguments of counsel, we agree with the

trial court that questions of fact remain as to whether the payment to “Johnny

Bourgeois, informal trustee of Alexis Nicole Bellow,” constitutes payment “in

accordance with the terms of the policy.” Therefore, we find no error in the trial

court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

3

CONCLUSION

We deny State Farm’s writ. The trial court correctly denied the motion for

summary judgment. Costs are assessed to the Defendant.

WRIT DENIED.

4