by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC
Why It's Important to Name and Review Beneficiaries?
I've previously reviewed the important topic of beneficiary designations extensively in two blogs on the 4structures.com Settlement News Network blog.
Structured Settlement Beneficiary | Why It's Important (4structures.com)
Structured Settlement Beneficiary Designations (4structures.com)
This is also relevant and important to life insurance, bank accounts, investment accounts and retirement accounts and overall estate planning. "Setting it and forgetting it" could have unintended consequences. Check out the Rolison case that has been heavily litigated in the Western District of Pennsylvania and a had published decision in April 2024. See The Procter & Gamble U.S. Bus. Servs. Co. v. Estate of Rolison, Civil Action 3:17-CV-00762 | Casetext Search + Citator
Losinger is Winner as Former Partner of Dead Proctor & Gamble Employee Inherits $1M Plus 37 Years After Split
In 1987, Jeffery Rolison filed a handwritten form naming his then partner, Margaret M. Sjostedt (now Margaret Losinger) the sole beneficiary of his P&G retirement account. Rolison never changed it between 1987 and his death in 2015. Rolison and Marget broke up in 1988. Margret is set to inherit that $1 million retirement account (over Rollison's estate) as Rolison never updated the beneficiary designation and Margaret was still listed as the beneficiary when he died.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE U.S. BUSINESS SERVICES COMPANY, as Plan Administrator and on Behalf of THE PROCTER & GAMBLE PROFIT SHARING TRUST AND EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN and THE PROCTER & GAMBLE SAVINGS PLAN Plaintiff,
v. ESTATE OF JEFFREY ROLISON, Deceased, MARGARET M. LOSINGER, and MARY LOU MURRAY Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIANo. 3:17-CV-00762
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
"Rolison Knew That He Needed to Check and Change Beneficiary Numerous Times But Simply Failed to Do So"-Court
"There no record evidence in this case that supports the Estate's position that Rolison failed to change his beneficiary status because of any misrepresentation or omission on P&G's part. Instead, again, the record reflects that P&G warned Rolison to check and change his beneficiary designation numerous times between 1987 and 2015 and that “Rolison knew that he needed to take affirmative steps to change his previous beneficiary status,” but that he “simply failed to do so.” - Court
Comments and Trackback Policy