Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,101
- Reaction score
- 407,354
Here we go again with me being slow, but I don’t get this. You mean if my husband murdered me, and went to prison, he still gets half the insurance? So his half goes to his parents? I thought murder disqualifies you from profit? So he’d be disqualified and it would all go the the wife’s family?
You are not being slow @Sheila Terranova! Actually, the issue was more complicated because this wasn't just ordinary life insurance but an accidental life group benefit where the employee CW was the insured, and by an endorsement, SW, BW, and CcW were covered persons.
RW and CyW came into the fold to file a claim because SW died without a will, and the Watts's filed claims as beneficiaries to CW based on a legal, technicality.
I believe the competing issues at play here are best explained in the Complaint for Interpleader Declaratory Relief filed by the Insurer (Zurich) in the US District Court for the District of Colorado.
For the group benefit, legally, CW was the insured and named SW 100% beneficiary of his policy, and by the terms of the group policy, employee CW was 100% beneficiary of the covered persons.
Previously, CW waived any interest in any insurance benefits to SW's estate (by order filed with probate court).
As for the Slayer Statute, it prohibits killers from the wrongful acquisition of property. The complaint by Zurich further cited that the statute makes reference to the governing instrument (i.e., Will) whereby it was learned that SW died without a Will.
In its complaint, Zurich Insurance told the court that it was obligated to pay benefits totaling $450,000 pursuant to covered person endorsements but also asked the court to decide which party to pay after they received two competing claims: FR filed a claim on behalf of the estate of SW, and RW/CyW filed claims as CW's beneficiaries.
Zurich also asked the court to decide if CW could legally direct his beneficiary interest to SW's estate without violating the Slayer statute and/or taking wrongful acquisition of the property which is prohibited by the statute.
In the end, the court did not have to decide after the claimants came up with a private agreement for the proceeds, and promised to release Zurich from its obligation if they deposited the proceeds with the court for disbursement by FR's attorneys. (In addition to the claim first filed by SW's estate, FR and SR also later filed claims for the benefits).
US District Court - District of Colorado
Last edited: