Estate of Cupp v. Safeco Crop.3/15/2005
The Estate of Thomas C. Cupp sued Safeco Life Insurance Company and its agent, Harold Roberts, for negligence, malpractice, and the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court granted summary judgment to Safeco and Roberts. We affirm, even though we take the facts in the light most favorable to the Estate.
Thomas C. Cupp died on October 13, 2000. He had been married and divorced twice: first to Tracy Tennis and then to Katia Hanna. He and Tracy had a daughter, Amanda. He and Katia had a daughter, Karina. While he and Katia were married, her other children, Nolan, Shawn, and Stephanie Hanna, were his stepchildren.
In 1991, while married to Katia, Cupp bought a $400,000 life insurance policy. The policy was issued by Safeco Life through its agent, Harold Roberts. The policy listed Katia as primary beneficiary and Amanda, Nolan, Shawn, and Stephanie as contingent beneficiaries. Cupp and Katia later had Karina.
In April 1999, Cupp and Katia divorced. Cupp received the Safeco policy as his separate property, although he also was ordered to maintain $200,000 of life insurance for Katia and Karina.
On May 10, 1999, Cupp and Roberts met in Roberts' office. Cupp said that he wanted to make Amanda and Karina the policy's beneficiaries. Roberts recommended that Cupp create a trust since Amanda and Karina were still minors. Cupp decided instead to name his sister, Barbara Gietzen, as beneficiary, because he believed she would use the proceeds for the benefit of Amanda and Karina. Roberts prepared a change form that Cupp signed in Roberts' office. Roberts advised that Katia should sign the change form also; thus, when Cupp left, he took the form with him so he could have Katia sign it.
On October 13, 2000, Cupp died. He had never returned the change form. Three days later, Gietzen informed Roberts of Cupp's death. Roberts reported Cupp's death to Safeco Life and requested a 'call back to advise whom {sic} the beneficiary is.' Roberts did not mention the change form to either Gietzen or Safeco.
On or about November 1, 2000, Gietzen found the change form among Cupp's papers. It had been signed by Katia as well as by Cupp. Gietzen submitted it to Safeco, which did not dispute it.
On November 6, 2000, Gietzen told Roberts that she had found the change form among Cupp's papers. Roberts initially denied that Cupp had signed the form in Roberts' office. Later, however, Roberts admitted that Cupp had.
In January 2001, Safeco Life filed an interpleader action. Noting that it had received claims from or on behalf of Amanda, Karina, Nolan, Shawn, and Stephanie, it asked the court to decide who was entitled to the policy proceeds. In November 2001, the interpleader action was settled, and Safeco paid the full amount of the policy ($400,000).
In April 2002, the Estate sued Safeco Life, Roberts personally, and Roberts & Associates. It alleged professional malpractice, practicing law without a license, breach of contract and warranty, negligence, bad faith, negligent misrepresentation, Consumer Protection Act violation, overreaching, breach of fiduciary duties, and entitlement to injunctive relief.
In 2003, the parties filed various motions and cross-motions for summary judgment. In one of those, the Estate contended that 'the deceased suffered anxiety, emotional distress and humiliation as a result of the roadblocks, obstacles and negligence of the defendants who failed to ascertain the law, train properly, advise properly and handle his attempted beneficiary change in the manner they were required by law to do.' To support this contention, the Estate attached the following interrogatory answ
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|