What happens when an annuity policy has 1 owner named on the policy (the husband) but the husband and the wife both sign the application as co-owners. The policy says a co-owner/ surviving spouse can roll the annuity into her name when the husband/annuitant dies, but the insurance company says her name is not on the policy as owner, so they want to pay the policy proceeds to the beneficiaries - the children.
What you’re asking is “what happens when an insurance company makes a mistake,” and the answer is “pretend that they didn’t make a mistake.” Ask them to produce the original paperwork, or, better still, produce the copy that you kept.
That’s not the problem. The application has both signatures but the company says that the person named on the policy as the owner controls.
Could you explain more clearly? When you say “the application has both signatures,” that implies that you signed as joint owners. When you say “the person named on the policy as the owner,” that implies that the policy names one person as the owner. Both of those things cannot be true.
Sometimes the spouse is required to sign only to show that he or she is aware of the movement of assets, so that the company isn’t liable for improper / hidden assets. In that case, the second signature just means “Oh, yeah, I knew about this,” and doesn’t give you any right to access it. In fact, it’s the opposite: you signed knowing it was set up to go from spouse > children without you. So that’s a possibility, but it should have been clear at the time.
Otherwise, it’s possible that it is, indeed, their mistake, and that you should have been joint owners. But it has to be one or the other.
What’s probably determinative is the original application. If the husb & wife filled it out with one owner in the owner blocks but both signed on page 4, then they goofed and it was his annuity with a useless second signature on the app.
I’d also look to the original certifacte of insurance or equivalent. IOW, what the company sent back wherein they said “you’re now covered for X, Y and Z subject to A, B, and C”. That is the controlling doc and if it didn’t match what the husb & wife wanted, *then *was the time to correct the problem. Not 30 years later when he’s deceased.
If you’re still unhappy, check with an insurance agent in your jurisdiction. Followed shortly by a litigator in your jurisdiction. But be prepared to be told you’re barking up a dead tree.
Bottom line: What coverage they intended to buy doesn’t much matter. What does matter is what they actually bought.
There is only one place on the app to sign. One space says owner and was signed by the husband and next to it is a space that says co-owner and the wife signed there.
But surely what that means is the insurance company made a mistake? If A and B jointly apply to the insurance company for a policy to be issued to both of them jointly, and the insurance company then issues a policy to A only, how is that not a mistake on the part of the insurance company?
Different matter if A and B jointly apply for a policy to be issued to A, and the insurer duly issues a policy to A. If that’s not what A and B intended when they applied then, clearly, there has been a mistake, but it may not be a mistake on the part of the insurer.
Look at the contract. Almost all annuities are single person (based on SS#) unless they specifically contain a spousal benefit rider. If your parents didn’t have one of those riders - and it would have cost them a bit more - then it’s likely that no matter who signed what there’s no downstream right to continuing income for the survivor.
The policy didn’t have a spousal benefit rider - it was built into the policy. The policy says that “the beneficiary of the co-owner spouses must be the surviving spouse”, and that “co-owners are deemed to be joint tenants with right of survivorship unless they indicate otherwise”.
The app lists the husband as the owner - but the app is signed by the husband on the line that says “owner” and the wife on the line that says “co-owner”.
Legal advice is best suited to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I don’t recall if you mentioned what state this is in.
Not sure what you expect folks to say-do with a “what happens when” question. Care to articulate the question more clearly?
So why wouldn’t the wife ensure that she was named on the policy as a co-owner and not just signing an application as “co-owner”? I suspect the spouse didn’t actually read and understand each and every policy term.
As for what Astro posted, relevant part is: “If joint ownership by a married couple is desirable for other reasons, **be sure that each spouse names the other as primary **beneficiary ****– for the spousal exception to the required distribution rules to apply, the surviving spouse must be the designated beneficiary of the contract. If someone other than the surviving spouse is the designated beneficiary, or even if the spouse is the beneficiary along with another person, then even if the surviving spouse is a joint owner, the spousal exception is lost.”
Where there are conflicting isolated phrases within the policy terms and the parties can’t agree what the result should be, it’s up to a court to decide what controls. The issuing company is free to rely on the fact that only the husband’s name is actually the owning party, and the wife is free to try and make hay of the fact the application said X. But the application is only the application, and she/husband also failed to ensure that the actual to-be-named annuitant was [his name and her name]; they also didn’t name each other as primary beneficiary in the event of only one of them dying, right?
It is time for spouse to engage the assistance of an attorney. If the stakes are such that she needs to file a declaratory judgment action to get a court to say “insurer, you must pay proceeds to wife”, it is what it is.
This actually happened at my company.
We waived all claims from the spouse until the press got involved then we magically changed our mind and the policy was changed to be as if it was a joint life policy.
I think the couple were ‘at it’ as our joint life policies are significantly more expensive than a single life policy for a male only.
This is not the companies official view on the matter (obviously).