Beneficiaries names incorrect (not simple misspelling)

[not2cleverRed]

MA: I know hypotheticals aren't encouraged, but... I've been updating life insurance policies due to a death in the family, since it's preferable for policies to have living owners and beneficiaries. And I'm wondering what would happen if the primary beneficiary is deceased, and the secondary beneficiary is misnamed.

By "misnamed":
1) The minor child of the insured is listed with the incorrect surname - mother's maiden name. Parents were married, child's surname has always been the fathers. Were the insured to pass, would the relationship of "child" be sufficient to be recognized as a beneficiary?
2) The "custodian under utma" named is... well, I dunno. The surname is the family surname, but the first name doesn't belong to anyone in the family. Not even close. Not even extended family. Not even close. "Close" would be an anagram like Ronald and Roland, or a slight misspelling. I suspect the intended custodian was one of my bothers, but it's a real stretch - like assuming Hugh and Matthew could be interchanged stretch. So, were the insured to kick the bucket while their child was a minor, and before I get things straightened out, how would the "custodian" be determined?

It's a small policy, but the company has been very difficult to work with. From reviews, I've noticed that people who love them value the ease of paying premiums. No positive reviews from those who actually made a claim.

 

[adjusterjack]

1) The minor child of the insured is listed with the incorrect surname - mother's maiden name. Parents were married, child's surname has always been the fathers. Were the insured to pass, would the relationship of "child" be sufficient to be recognized as a beneficiary?

Likely yes, if there was only one child. More than one and there could be a problem unless the child with the wrong last name could be properly identified.

2) The "custodian under utma" named is... well, I dunno. The surname is the family surname, but the first name doesn't belong to anyone in the family. Not even close. Not even extended family. Not even close. "Close" would be an anagram like Ronald and Roland, or a slight misspelling. I suspect the intended custodian was one of my bothers, but it's a real stretch - like assuming Hugh and Matthew could be interchanged stretch. So, were the insured to kick the bucket while their child was a minor, and before I get things straightened out, how would the "custodian" be determined?

More than likely by going to court to properly identify a custodian.

If the insured/owner(s) of the policies are still alive, there should be no concern about the beneficiaries because the insured/owner((s) can submit a new beneficiary designation form making the corrections.

So, why is there a problem that leads to hypothetical questions. Details count.

 

[not2cleverRed]

More than likely by going to court to properly identify a custodian.

If the insured/owner(s) of the policies are still alive, there should be no concern about the beneficiaries because the insured/owner((s) can submit a new beneficiary designation form making the corrections.

So, why is there a problem that leads to hypothetical questions. Details count.

That's what I suspected.

The insured is alive, but the insurance company has been very resistant to providing the forms and information to the insured. (It's a small policy and you'd think they were guarding Fort Knox.) Seriously, how hard is it to process, "The owner of the policy is dead. We would like information on how to transfer ownership in this situation"? Anyway, we got the information last Friday, so the forms have been filled out and mailed. The desired updates will hopefully be soon accepted.

It's reassuring to know that I was not incorrect in my concern.

The one sibling that is willing to help with paperwork seems to view the policies as artifacts, but I keep confirming that they are for real... and really need updating. Oldest policy found so far was opened in 1938, fully paid up, beneficiaries last updated in 1970 according to our records - verified it's a valid policy!

 

[adjusterjack]

The one sibling that is willing to help with paperwork seems to view the policies as artifacts, but I keep confirming that they are for real... and really need updating. Oldest policy found so far was opened in 1938, fully paid up, beneficiaries last updated in 1970 according to our records - verified it's a valid policy!

As long as the insurance company exists the policy is good.

Was the "owner" a parent who took out policies for his young child?

If the child is an adult, the ownership of the policy should revert to the insured which, I'm guessing, is now in progress.

One thing for the insured to consider, if the insured is mentally competent, is find out how much the cash surrender value is (if it was whole life)). With policies that old the cash value may be approaching the amount of the death benefit.

 

[cbg]

Is it an individual policy or employer sponsored?

 

[zddoodah]

By "misnamed":
1) The minor child of the insured is listed with the incorrect surname - mother's maiden name.

So....Bob Smith married Jane Jones, and they had a kid named Bubba Smith, but the beneficiary designation is for Bubba Jones. That's what you mean?

Were the insured to pass, would the relationship of "child" be sufficient to be recognized as a beneficiary?

That would be awfully questionable. I doubt the insurance company that issued the policy would pay under these circumstances without some serious tooth pulling and, possibly, litigation. After all, Bob would be presumed to know that his kid is named Bubba Smith and not Bubba Jones.

I can't quite follow your second example, but I suspect the outcome would be the same.

Needless to say, if the insured is still alive and aware of the problem, he/she should fix it. AND, if, after the death of the insured, there is evidence that he/she was aware of the issue and didn't fix it, that would be evidence that the mistaken name was intentional and not a mistake.

 

[not2cleverRed]

So....Bob Smith married Jane Jones, and they had a kid named Bubba Smith, but the beneficiary designation is for Bubba Jones. That's what you mean?

Exactly.

Jane Jones is the insured, according to the latest statement the beneficiary is "Richard Jones custodian under utma for Bubba Jones (son)". Jane is concerned because although none of her Jones relatives are named Richard, the surname is common enough that someone might say it's just as possible that it was intended to be some random Richard Jones in the area.

Jane Jones has been trying for months to get the paperwork to change ownership, and was finally successful last week.

Thank you for confirming what Jane already suspected.