is completely at odds with the agreement read as a whole, which gives the policyholder, not Prudential, the initial l’ight to designate, and thereafter to change, beneficiaries. The phrase “in a form that meets our needs” plainly requires that a beneficiary request contain enough information to allow Prudential to act on the request. Compare McDaniel v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 722 So.2d 865, 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (policy holder failed to comply with the terms of her policy when she signed a form to change her last name, and checked a box next to a line entitled “beneficiary designation,” but left the line blank, even though she had told an agent that she would like to change her beneficiary by naming her new husband) with Smith v. Wilson, 440 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>). A beneficiary request will not be in a form
holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms holding that an insured has substantially complied with the change of beneficiary provisions of a life insurance policy when he has done all that he could to comply with the provisions holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code recognizing that a property settlement and divorce decree which provided for a certain party to be named the irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy was valid and enforceable against anyone subsequently named as a beneficiary