dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion as I believe that summary judgment was inappropriate. While the facts were undisputed, reasonable persons could differ as to the inference from these facts. Thus, the case should have been submitted to a jury.
The money in question, though held by Hartford, was owned by Hart and he could dispose of it as he pleased. The policy provision, which was not a model of clarity, regarding notice to Hartford was for Hartford’s benefit, to protect it from multiple or inconsistent payment obligations. No such issue arose. The money has been paid into the court and Hartford has taken no position with respect to the effectiveness of the beneficiary change.
In my view, the comprehensive question is whether Mr. Hart intended his wife or his children to receive the funds at his death. This factual issue is the dispute at hand.
In Hill v. Union Central Life Insurance Co.,1 this Court noted that substantial compliance has been found where “the insured had done all he could do under the circumstances; all he believed necessary to effect the change or what the ordinary layman would believe was all that was necessary to accomplish the change.” Given the uncertainty of the policy provisions concerning change of beneficiary, whether Mr. Hart could have believed he had accomplished the change is a factual question which should be answered by a jury.
GRAVES, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
. 513 S.W.2d 808 (Ky.1974) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).