interpleader.com
Guides

Basics

What can be interpleaded

If you are involved

Beneficiary disputes

Law and sources

Talk to an attorney

Beneficiary disputes

Disputed Changes of Beneficiary and Substantial Compliance

Many disputes start with a change that was not finished. A form was signed but not sent, sent but incomplete, or never filed at all. Courts look at what the policy requires, what the insured actually did, and sometimes at whether the insured "substantially complied."

By

On this page
  1. Start with what the policy requires
  2. Changes by will
  3. Substantial compliance
  4. Federal programs are strict
  5. How these disputes usually begin
  6. How courts have ruled
  7. Evidence that tends to matter

Start with what the policy requires

A beneficiary designation is part of a contract. The policy or plan usually says that the owner may change the beneficiary by written notice in a particular form, signed by the owner, and filed at a particular office. In Adams, for example, the group certificate said: “You may change the beneficiary by written notice to us signed by you,” and listed the offices where the notice could be filed.1

When the insured followed those steps, the change is usually effective. Disputes arise when something is missing, such as an unsigned or unwitnessed form, a form that was never sent, or a form received after death.

Changes by will

People sometimes try to change a beneficiary in their will. Courts generally reject that approach because insurance proceeds pass under the contract, not through the estate. In Cook, the Indiana Court of Appeals described the rule that a will cannot change the beneficiary of a life insurance policy as the majority rule.2 Federal programs say so expressly: under FEGLI, “a designation, change, or cancellation of beneficiary in a will or other document not so executed and filed has no force or effect.”3

Substantial compliance

Many courts recognize an exception. If the insured clearly intended to make a change and did essentially everything required, a court may treat the change as made even though a step was missing.

For ERISA plans, the Fourth Circuit held that state substantial-compliance law was preempted and adopted a federal common-law rule instead. Under it, an insured substantially complies when he or she “(1) evidences his or her intent to make the change and (2) attempts to effectuate the change by undertaking positive action which is for all practical purposes similar to the action required by the change of beneficiary provisions of the policy.”1 Other circuits take different approaches, so the rule in your circuit may differ:

  • The Ninth Circuit treats whether an ERISA participant “strictly or substantially complied with the governing plan documents” as a question of state law. It held that a jury could find that a retiree’s phone calls to his employer to change his beneficiary were substantial compliance.4

  • The Eighth Circuit has mentioned the doctrine without adopting it, and has left open whether it survives the Supreme Court’s 2009 Kennedy decision. It has said that even if the doctrine remains available, it “would not deprive the administrator of the power to require strict compliance with the terms of the plan.”5 It applied that reasoning when a plan rejected a change form that did not follow the form’s instructions and the participant never fixed it.6

  • In an unpublished decision applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit said the doctrine “generally requires, at a minimum, a written document or a form reflecting the insured’s desire to change the beneficiaries.” An insured who met with her bank and called the insurer, but never submitted a written request, did not qualify.7

  • Applying Florida law, which requires strict compliance with the policy, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a ruling that a 2009 change request on a life insurance policy with a face amount of $1,000,000 never took effect. The insurer had rejected it as defective, explained the defects, and sent a new form, and the insured never responded in the roughly ten years before his death. His daughter, a minor when the case was filed, remained the sole beneficiary under the earlier designation, and the court later ordered the registry funds paid to her.8 See the full summary.

  • Outside ERISA, a District of Idaho bench trial applied Idaho’s substantial-compliance test to a change form whose first page, naming the insured’s girlfriend, lacked his name, policy number and date, and whose signature page had been notarized separately weeks earlier. The insurer had sent a letter asking him to complete the form, and he never did. The court found that any intent to make the change had been abandoned and that he had not done everything in his power to make it, so “[t]he Change Form was ineffective under both Banner’s terms, and the substantial-compliance doctrine.”9 See the full summary.

  • Federal courts applying Arkansas law use substantial compliance: an incomplete change can still be enforced if the insured did everything reasonably possible to make it.

  • Indiana courts look for substantial compliance with a policy’s change terms, so a change that skipped a written requirement, such as one made by phone, can be disputed.

  • Connecticut’s starting rule is that a change must follow the policy’s procedure, with substantial compliance as the fallback.

  • In Colorado, a letter can change a beneficiary even when the insurer wanted its own form.

  • Oregon courts look past paperwork to intent, so a change can succeed even when the form never reaches the insurer.

  • Under District of Columbia law, a change must be shown by “some unmistakable proof that the decedent did actually make the change.”

Federal programs are strict

  • FEGLI. Payment goes first to the beneficiary “designated by the employee in a signed and witnessed writing received before death in the employing office” (or, for certain annuitants and compensation recipients, at the Office of Personnel Management).3
  • SGLI and VGLI. Payment goes first to the beneficiary designated “by a writing received prior to death” in the uniformed services or the designated administrative office.10

A form signed but not received before death generally does not satisfy these statutes. But a form that was received and then lost or never recorded can still count. In MetLife v. Vasquez, the employer could find only an earlier form naming the insured’s mother, and the widow relied on a later form the employer could not locate. The Fifth Circuit held, in an unpublished opinion, that a FEGLI form is “received” “when an insured individual hands the form to an appropriate person at the insured’s employing office,” with no need for a receipt stamp or a copy in the personnel file, and that a supervisor’s testimony that he watched the hand-off created a fact issue for trial.11 See federal programs.

How these disputes usually begin

Late and incomplete changes are a frequent cause of holds. Illustrative examples, written for this guide:

  • A change form that arrived shortly before death but was not processed, for example because a signature had to be confirmed.
  • A person who says the insured “told HR” or “called the company” to make a change but never completed the form.
  • A new designation made on the wrong form, sent to the wrong office, or made online, with a question about who actually submitted it.
  • An agent under a power of attorney who changed the beneficiary, sometimes to himself or herself, and a question whether the power allowed that.

A change made days before the death

A change made very close to the death draws challenges even when the form itself is in order. In Prudential v. Vagotis (D. Ariz. 2017), the insured’s mother challenged a change made days before the death that named the spouse, relying on undue influence and Arizona’s vulnerable-adult statute; it ended by consent judgment.12 In Aetna v. Vacknitz (S.D. Tex. 2019), the widow challenged an online change made the night before the death, naming the insured’s former wife, for lack of capacity; it settled.13 See undue influence and capacity.

A mailed form the insurer never received

In Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Shipman, the policy allowed a change by a “request written to [the insurer] and received by [the insurer].” The insured’s surviving spouse produced a change form dated December 21, 2016, naming him, and swore that she had mailed it; the insurer had no record of receiving it. The named beneficiary, her former long-term partner, moved for summary judgment. Applying New Mexico law, under which an insured “generally must comply with procedures adopted by the insurer,” and the equitable rule that a court may give effect to a change where the insured “has done everything reasonably within his power,” the court denied the motion: “genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether [the insured] intended to change the beneficiary of her life insurance policy … and whether she generally or substantially complied with [the insurer’s] procedures to do so” (at 5–7).14 The claimants then settled, and each received $136,010.07 plus 50% of the interest, less half of any registry fees.15

A claim form versus later confirmed designations

In Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lyphout, a surviving spouse had continued her late husband’s annuity as owner. As the pleadings described it, one set of relatives relied on a December 2018 claimant statement that the insurer said it never received, while four grandchildren were named as primary beneficiaries on later forms the insurer confirmed in 2019. The insurer interpleaded the annuity proceeds in May 2025, and the parties resolved the dispute by an agreed judgment in December 2025, which divided the $420,106.77 deposit into four equal 25% shares of about $105,027 each, plus 25% of the interest, to the four grandchildren named on the later forms.16 No court decided which document controlled.

A form rejected as an outdated version

A form can fail because of the custodian’s own procedures rather than any defect in intent. In an IRA interpleader in federal court in New York, the brokerage firm alleged that it rejected a change form, signed in 2018 but submitted in 2020, “because that form was outdated” and it then used an updated version. It said it told the owner several times to resubmit, and she never did before she died. The form also had missing Social Security numbers, an altered percentage and handwritten contingent names, according to the complaint. Relatives named on the form claimed the accounts, and the firm alleged that the account agreement’s default made the surviving spouse the beneficiary. These are the firm’s allegations; as of the rulings reviewed, the court had not decided which controls.17 See the case summary.

A change made by an agent under a power of attorney

A general power over insurance is not necessarily a power to name oneself. In Transamerica Advisors Life Ins. Co. v. Marsch (M.D. La. 2017), an annuity owner had named his daughter as beneficiary. A few months before he died, he signed a durable power of attorney naming a relative as his agent, and the agent sent the insurer a change form naming herself sole beneficiary. The insurer refused the change. The power let the agent “deal with insurance and annuity contracts” and “make any elections and disclaimers under such policies,” but another paragraph said she could not, “unless specifically authorized by this document,” designate his assets or rights to herself. The court held that “Paragraph 15 limits the grant of power in Paragraph 7,” and that Louisiana Civil Code article 2998, under which a mandatary “may not contract with himself unless he is authorized by the principal,” required express authority that the document did not give. The daughter, as the named beneficiary, took the proceeds.18 See the decision summary.

Two people who match the name on the form

A designation can be clear on paper and still fit more than one person. In Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. White (D.N.M.), the insured applied in 2011 for a $1,000,000 policy that named a former spouse as primary beneficiary, identified by name and the abbreviation “X-spou.” According to the insurer’s complaint, the former spouse who had that name in 2011 claimed as the named beneficiary. A woman the insured married after the policy was issued, who later came to use the same name and also divorced him, claimed as well. The insurer said it had no record of a change request before his death in December 2024, and it filed a Rule 22 interpleader in May 2025. These are the insurer’s allegations, not findings.19

An irrevocable designation the new beneficiaries never signed

An irrevocable designation can require more than the owner’s signature. In ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon (S.D.N.Y.), the insured’s 2009 designation on a $1,000,000 term policy named one person as primary beneficiary and two of his children as contingent beneficiaries. In March 2024 he submitted a form naming seven relatives as irrevocable primary beneficiaries, in shares from 5% to 42%. According to the insurer’s complaint, it told him that day that the intended irrevocable beneficiaries had to sign the form before it could process the change, and it never received a signed form before he died in January 2025. The 2009 primary beneficiary and the relatives named on the 2024 form claimed the benefit, and the insurer filed a statutory interpleader in February 2026. These are the insurer’s allegations, not findings.20

How courts have ruled

  • 30 F.3d 554
  • 4th Cir. 1994
  • ERISA group life
  • Change upheld
Facts
Bill Adams designated his son, Jack, as beneficiary of his employer group life insurance in 1987. Before he died in September 1990, he signed a change form for his wife, Rosita, and the form was later completed by filling in her name. Both Jack and Rosita claimed the proceeds. The insurer filed an interpleader, deposited the money, and was dismissed.
Holding
ERISA preempted South Carolina's substantial-compliance law, and federal common law applied. The evidence showed that Bill intended the change and substantially complied with the policy's requirements, so Rosita was entitled to the proceeds.
Why it matters
An imperfect change can still be effective under ERISA in the Fourth Circuit if intent is clear and the insured took the required kind of action.

Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 30 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 1994), No. 93-2119. Caselaw Access Project.

  • 428 N.E.2d 110
  • Ind. Ct. App. 1981
  • Individual life insurance
  • Change by will rejected
Facts
Douglas Cook bought a policy in 1953 naming his then-wife, Doris. They divorced in 1965, and the decree did not mention the policy. He remarried, and in 1976 wrote a handwritten will leaving his insurance policies to his second wife and their son. The policy allowed a change only by written notice endorsed by the insurer, and no change was filed. The insurer filed an interpleader.
Holding
The court affirmed summary judgment for Doris. It agreed that Indiana follows the majority rule that an attempt to change a beneficiary by will, without more, is ineffective.
Why it matters
A will is generally not a substitute for the insurer's change-of-beneficiary process, even when the insured's later wishes seem clear.

Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 428 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). Caselaw Access Project.

  • M.D. Tenn. No. 3:23-cv-00805
  • 2025
  • California law
  • Forged change void
Facts
The insured and her husband had named each other as primary beneficiaries of their life insurance policies; hers was a $250,000 policy. A March 2020 change form made their daughter the primary beneficiary of the insured's policy, with the husband as secondary beneficiary. After the insured died, the husband said the daughter had forged the signatures, and the insurer paid the proceeds into the court's registry. The insurer's own review concluded that the signatures were not authentic. The daughter, who represented herself, did not answer requests for admission asking her to admit that she had signed her parents' names. A funeral-financing company that had advanced funeral and burial costs held an assignment from both claimants.
Holding
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the unanswered requests were deemed admitted, which conclusively established the facts. Applying California law, because the contract was made in California, the court held that the forged change form was void and granted summary judgment for the husband. With all parties' agreement, it first ordered payment to the funeral-financing company under the assignment. It directed the clerk to disburse the $242,730.96 in the court's registry, which included accrued interest: $35,692.47 to the funeral-financing company and $207,038.49 to the husband, each plus any additional interest.
Why it matters
A forged change form has no effect, and the earlier designation controls. The case also shows that ignoring requests for admission in an interpleader can decide the case against the party who stays silent.

Everlake Life Ins. Co. v. Lomax, No. 3:23-cv-00805 (M.D. Tenn.): order granting interpleader relief and discharge (June 10, 2024, ECF No. 36); memorandum opinion and order granting summary judgment and disbursement (Mar. 6, 2025, ECF No. 45), court order (PDF) (also on govinfo.gov (PDF)). Full summary.

  • D.S.C. No. 1:21-cv-02789-MGL
  • 2022–2023
  • South Carolina law
  • Forgery claim allowed to go to trial
Facts
The insured's mother had been the primary beneficiary of his $200,000 life insurance policy since 2012. In June 2019 the insurer received a change form naming his former partner, listed on the form as his fiancée, as primary beneficiary. The form had been filled out in her handwriting and bore what purported to be the insured's signature and a witness's signature. The insured died in February 2021, both women claimed the benefit, and the insurer interpleaded them and deposited it. Over the mother's objection that discovery was continuing, the court discharged the insurer in November 2022, explaining that "[a]t this late juncture, Protective is merely a disinterested third-party to the dispute between Auman and Henderson. In other words, it is no more than a witness." The partner then moved for summary judgment. The mother's evidence included her own opinion that the signature on the form was not her son's.
Holding
The court stated the South Carolina rule: "But, in instances involving forgery of a decedent's signature, the beneficiary designation is ineffective, and thus the next most recent beneficiary designation controls." So, "if the Auman Designation was void because of a forgery, Rose—the previous beneficiary—would be entitled to the proceeds of the Policy." It treated the mother's testimony as admissible lay opinion: "Here, Rose's assertion that the signature was a forgery is an opinion, but it is evidently based on Rose's personal and firsthand experience, as Joe's mother, of having observed Joe's signature." The court acknowledged that "Rose may have a difficult time at trial explaining away the witness signature and convincing a jury to believe her self-serving opinion that Joe's signature was forged. But, on a motion for summary judgment, the Court "cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations."" It concluded that "[a] reasonable jury could find that the Auman Designation is void and Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the Policy," and denied summary judgment on May 8, 2023. The claimants later resolved their dispute, and on their joint motion the court ordered the fund disbursed and entered judgment on July 12, 2023, so no jury decided the forgery question.
Why it matters
A family member who knows the insured's signature can create a triable forgery question with her own testimony, even against a witnessed form. Whether that testimony persuades is for trial. Compare Harris v. Wiggins, below, where a challenger who offered no witnesses or handwriting expert lost on summary judgment, and Lomax, above, where the forgery was established by unanswered requests for admission.

Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Henderson, No. 1:21-cv-02789-MGL (D.S.C.) (Lewis, J.): order discharging the insurer (Nov. 3, 2022, ECF No. 70), court order (PDF); memorandum opinion and order denying summary judgment (May 8, 2023, ECF No. 95), court order (PDF); order on the joint motion for disbursement (July 12, 2023, ECF No. 103), court order (PDF); judgment (July 12, 2023, ECF No. 104), court judgment (PDF). For the forgery rule the court cited Gavin v. North Carolina Mutual Life Ins. Co., 217 S.E.2d 591 (S.C. 1975), as cited in ECF No. 95. See also South Carolina.

  • E.D. Tex. No. 1:18-cv-00523-MAC
  • 2020
  • Texas law
  • Change upheld
Facts
The insured's son challenged a May 2018 change form that named the insured's fiancée as primary beneficiary. He argued his father had not made the change because the beneficiary section was in someone else's handwriting and the form misidentified the contingent beneficiary as the insured's son.
Holding
The policy allowed a change by notice to the insurer and did "not require that the form be wholly in the insured's handwriting to be valid." The court treated the son's claim as a challenge to the signature. A notarized power of attorney signed two days later was "self-authenticating and competent evidence" of the signature, the signatures appeared "quite similar," and the son offered no witnesses or handwriting expert, so there was no genuine dispute. His fraud allegations were also too general to satisfy Rule 9(b).
Why it matters
What counts is what the policy requires. Someone else filling in part of a form does not make it invalid, and a forgery claim needs evidence such as a handwriting expert.

Harris v. Wiggins (originally Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Wiggins), No. 1:18-cv-00523-MAC (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2020), at 7–14. Order (PDF). Full summary.

Evidence that tends to matter

  • The policy or plan’s change procedure, and the form the insured used.
  • Who prepared the form, who signed it, and when.
  • Proof of sending or receipt, such as fax confirmations, mail receipts, and the insurer’s or employer’s records.
  • Statements and actions showing what the insured intended, keeping in mind the evidence rules on hearsay.

If the change was made close to death or during serious illness, the dispute may also involve undue influence or capacity.

Footnotes

  1. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 30 F.3d 554, 564 (4th Cir. 1994). ↩ ↩2

  2. Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 428 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). ↩

  3. 5 U.S.C. § 8705(a). Cornell LII. ↩ ↩2

  4. Becker v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1035, 1041–42 (9th Cir. 2015), No. 13-35069. Opinion (PDF), Ninth Circuit. ↩

  5. Hall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 995, 999 (8th Cir. 2014). ↩

  6. Gelschus v. Hogen, 47 F.4th 679 (8th Cir. 2022), No. 21-3453 (quoting Hall). ↩

  7. Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Marcelle, No. 24-30349 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished). Opinion (PDF), Fifth Circuit. ↩

  8. American General Life Ins. Co. v. Maharajh, No. 22-10220 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023) (unpublished), ECF No. 52-1, court copy (PDF) (also on GovInfo and the Eleventh Circuit site (PDF)), aff’g No. 8:20-cv-1581-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2021) (district court caption uses the minor’s initials), order granting summary judgment, ECF No. 62, court order (PDF) (also on the M.D. Fla. site (PDF)); judgment, ECF No. 63 (Dec. 17, 2021), court judgment (PDF); order of interpleader disbursement and discharge, ECF No. 79 (Sept. 28, 2023). ↩

  9. Banner Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, No. 1:20-cv-00036-JZ, mem. op. at 8–11 (D. Idaho Dec. 27, 2021), Doc. 77. Court copy (PDF); GovInfo. ↩

  10. 38 U.S.C. § 1970(a). Cornell LII. ↩

  11. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Vasquez, No. 24-11024, 2025 WL 2795055 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), slip op. at 6–8, opinion as filed in the district court (PDF); judgment (PDF). ↩

  12. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Vagotis, No. 2:17-cv-02761 (D. Ariz.): order for interpleader relief and discharge, ECF No. 24 (Oct. 12, 2017); consent judgment, ECF No. 35 (entered Nov. 13, 2017), court judgment (PDF); order dismissing case, ECF No. 36 (Mar. 29, 2018). The description of the claims comes from the case file, not from a ruling; no court decided undue influence. ↩

  13. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Vacknitz, No. 4:19-cv-01590 (S.D. Tex.): order granting interpleader and discharge, ECF No. 13 (Oct. 10, 2019); order of dismissal on announcement of settlement, ECF No. 17 (Oct. 29, 2019); final judgment, ECF No. 19 (Nov. 20, 2019), court judgment (PDF). The description of the claims comes from the case file, not from a ruling; no court decided capacity. ↩

  14. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Shipman, No. 1:23-cv-00731-DHU-LF (D.N.M.), memorandum opinion and order, ECF No. 43 (June 26, 2024), court order (PDF), at 2–7. ↩

  15. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Shipman, No. 1:23-cv-00731-DHU-LF (D.N.M.), final judgment and order of interpleader disbursement, ECF No. 47 (July 22, 2024), court judgment (PDF). ↩

  16. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lyphout, No. 3:25-cv-00444-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), final judgment order in interpleader, ECF No. 39 (Dec. 10, 2025), court judgment (PDF); see also order, ECF No. 19 (July 23, 2025). ↩

  17. Complaint for Interpleader ¶¶ 17–28, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Ellison, No. 6:23-cv-06497 (W.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 28, 2023), ECF No. 1, complaint (PDF). Allegations only. ↩

  18. Transamerica Advisors Life Ins. Co. v. Marsch, No. 3:16-cv-00247-RLB (M.D. La.), consent ruling on motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 28 (signed Mar. 22, 2017, filed Mar. 23, 2017), at 5–8, court order (PDF); consent judgment, ECF No. 30 (May 24, 2017), court judgment (PDF); consent order disbursing registry funds, ECF No. 31 (June 13, 2017). ↩

  19. Complaint for Interpleader Relief ¶¶ 6–16, 24, Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. White, No. 1:25-cv-00430 (D.N.M. filed May 6, 2025), ECF No. 1, complaint (PDF). Allegations only. ↩

  20. Complaint for Interpleader Relief ¶¶ 10, 13–25, ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon, No. 1:26-cv-01258 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 13, 2026), ECF No. 1, complaint (PDF). Allegations only. ↩