Cowart v. Helms

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2),
SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

United of Omaha
Insurance Company, Plaintiff

v.

Elaine Helms
and Linda R. Cowart, Defendants,

Linda R.
Cowart, Cross Plaintiff

v.

Elaine Helms,
Cross Defendant,

Of whom Linda
R. Cowart is the, Appellant,

and

Elaine Helms is
the, Respondent.

Appeal From Horry
County

Honorable Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  
2009-UP-261

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 1, 2009

Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled August 25, 2009

AFFIRMED

E. Windell McCrackin, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Elaine Helms, of Lancaster, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Linda
Cowart (Cowart) appeals the circuit court’s determination Elaine Helms is
entitled to the benefits of William Cowart’s life insurance policy (the
Policy).  We affirm. [1]

Omaha Life Insurance (Omaha) issued William B. Cowart (decedent)
the Policy in the amount of $30,000.  Decedent was the named
applicant.  Originally, Cowart, decedent’s wife, was the named beneficiary
under the Policy.  However, decedent later executed a change of beneficiary form, naming Helms, his sister, the
beneficiary.  Following decedent’s death, Omaha filed an interpleader action, requesting permission to deposit the  proceeds from the Policy with the Horry County
clerk of court.  After a hearing, the circuit court determined decedent, as owner of the Policy, executed a proper change of
beneficiary and Helms is entitled to the Policy proceeds. We find the circuit
court properly determined from the Policy language decedent was the owner of
the Policy and Helms is entitled to the Policy proceeds. 

Insurance
policies are subject to general rules of contract construction and courts must
enforce, not write, contracts of insurance and must give policy language its
plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.  Fritz-Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick v. Goforth, 312 S.C. 315, 318, 440 S.E.2d 367,
369 (1994) “[T]he terms of an insurance policy must be construed most
liberally in favor of the insured and where the words of a policy are ambiguous
or where they are capable of two reasonable interpretations that construction
will be adopted which is most favorable to the insured.”  Garrett v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 241 S.C. 299, 304, 128
S.E.2d 171, 174 (1962).   The right to change the
beneficiary may be reserved by the language of the policy itself.  Waters
v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 365 S.C. 519, 523-24, 617 S.E.2d 385,
387-88 (Ct. App. 2005)

Cowart
argues she is the owner of the Policy, and therefore, decedent’s change of
beneficiary form is invalid, making her entitled to the Policy proceeds. 
The Policy defines “owner” as “(a) the Insured, (b) the applicant if a person
other than the Insured applied for this policy, or (c) the assignee of record
in the case of an assignment of ownership.”[2]  The Policy language itself reserves
the right of the insured to change the beneficiary.  The beneficiary under
the Policy named in the application “may be changed as described” in the Policy
unless the owner states it is irrevocable.  A change in beneficiary under
the Policy must be made in writing and is effective the date the owner signs
the request once it is “recorded and acknowledged by [Omaha.]” 

Here, decedent is both the insured and the applicant on the Policy. 
Additionally, his signature appears on the application form.  Furthermore,
the change of beneficiary form bears decedent’s signature as the Policy
owner.  As owner of the Policy, decedent executed a proper change of
beneficiary form which effectively changed the beneficiary from Cowart to
Helms.  Consequently, at the time of decedent’s death, Helms was the
recorded beneficiary.  Therefore, the circuit court did not err in determining
decedent was the owner of the Policy and in finding Helms, not Cowart, was
entitled to Policy’s benefits. 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.

[2] Cowart does not argue there was an assignment of
ownership.