interpleader.com
Guides

Basics

What can be interpleaded

If you are involved

Beneficiary disputes

Law and sources

Talk to an attorney

State law

Colorado: Beneficiary Disputes and Interpleader Under Colorado Law

In Colorado a letter can change a beneficiary even when the insurer wanted its own form. A federal judge in Denver held a one-day-old letter effective against a bankruptcy trustee's claim to a $1 million policy.

By

On this page
  1. A letter instead of the form
  2. Divorce and the slayer statute
  3. Decision
  4. Elsewhere on this site
  5. Related guides

A letter instead of the form

The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed changes that skip the insurer’s paperwork in ITT Life Ins. Corp. v. Damm, and a federal court in Denver followed it in Talley. As Talley read Damm, where the policy asks for written notice “satisfactory” to the company, the insured must give reasonable notice in writing, not necessarily on the company’s form.1

Transamerica v. Talley applied that rule to a $1,000,000 policy. The insured had named his wife in 2004, then switched the beneficiary to the title company he ran. On February 3, 2014, the day before he died, he wrote the insurer a signed letter saying he “hereby change[d] the beneficiary to” his wife. The insurer wrote back that it was “unable to process the request” because “[t]he incorrect form was used.” After learning of the death, it recorded the change anyway, then interpleaded about $1.015 million when the company’s Chapter 7 trustee also claimed the money.1

The court ruled for the wife on the beneficiary question:

  • The policy required only “satisfactory written notice,” and the letter carried virtually the same details as the form he had used before, plus the date and his relationship to her. “The Court concludes that Mr. Talley’s letter constituted reasonable written notice within the meaning of the policy.”
  • The letter did not say “primary,” but she was already the contingent beneficiary: “Mr. Talley’s failure to specifically request that Ms. Talley be made the primary or contingent beneficiary does not make his letter unclear.”
  • The trustee said company money paid the premiums. The court found the insured owned the policy and observed that it was “unaware of any case, however, that states that misappropriation of funds to pay premiums on a life insurance policy effects a change in legal ownership of the policy.” The trustee’s fraudulent-transfer and unjust-enrichment cross-claims, which could still reach the proceeds, remained pending for a later phase.1

The trustee also challenged the insured’s capacity. The court applied Colorado’s presumption of sanity and found no competent evidence to rebut it.1

The insurer’s discharge. The court discharged the insurer but, at the trustee’s request, limited the injunction to future suits about the proceeds: “The Court finds that an injunction limited to the proceeds is appropriate.”1 See discharge, fees and interest.

Divorce and the slayer statute

C.R.S. § 15-11-804 follows the Uniform Probate Code. Its revocation applies except “as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of the marital estate made between the divorced individuals before or after the marriage, divorce, or annulment.”2 In State Farm v. Hoops (D. Colo. 2017), a nunc pro tunc divorce order awarding the former wife half the policy’s “value” was such a court order, but it fixed her share at half the cash surrender value, not half the death benefit. The full summary is in the decisions library.

C.R.S. § 15-11-803 revokes a designation in favor of a person who commits a “felonious killing.”3 For an extreme example of how long an unresolved investigation can delay payment, see the Colorado case described in before an interpleader, filed about 16½ years after the death.

Decision

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Talley (D. Colo. 2015)

  • No. 1:14-cv-01412-PAB-CBS, Docket No. 44
  • Judge Philip A. Brimmer
  • Decided Aug. 31, 2015
Facts
A $1,000,000 policy named the insured's company as primary beneficiary and his wife as contingent beneficiary. A letter the day before his death changed the beneficiary to his wife. The insurer first rejected it for the wrong form, then recorded it. The company's bankruptcy trustee claimed the proceeds.
Holding
The letter was reasonable written notice under the policy and ITT v. Damm, and it changed the beneficiary before death. The wife's summary judgment motion was granted and the trustee's denied; the trustee's equitable cross-claims remained pending. The insurer was discharged with an injunction limited to the proceeds.
Why it matters
An insurer's form is not always the only way to change a beneficiary in Colorado, and a beneficiary win on the designation does not necessarily end a creditor's equitable claims.

Opinion: GovInfo.

Elsewhere on this site

  • Guerrero v. Northwestern Mutual (D. Colo.), a beneficiary’s own declaratory suit that was voluntarily dismissed, is discussed in when a claimant sues first.
  • American Modern v. Simms (D. Colo.), an interpleader of property insurance proceeds, is discussed in other disputed funds.

Footnotes

  1. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Talley, No. 1:14-cv-01412-PAB-CBS, Docket No. 44, slip op. at 2–5, 9–12, 18–20 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2015) (discussing ITT Life Ins. Corp. v. Damm, 567 P.2d 809, 810–11 (Colo. App. 1977)). GovInfo. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. C.R.S. § 15-11-804(2). Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Revised Statutes 2024, Title 15 (uncertified printout). ↩

  3. C.R.S. § 15-11-803. Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Revised Statutes 2024, Title 15 (uncertified printout). ↩