Slayer Statute

Orlaith is the named primary beneficiary of her husband 600,000 dollar policy. She is convicted of intentionally causing his death. Their adult daughter is the named contingent beneficiary. How are the proceeds handled?

1. A.Orlaith forfeits the proceeds and is treated as having predeceased the insured, so the daughter as contingent beneficiary receives themCorrect. The slayer rule disqualifies the wrongdoer and the proceeds pass as though she had predeceased the insured.
2. B.The proceeds are paid to Orlaith, because the insurer must follow the beneficiary designation as writtenPublic policy overrides the written designation where the beneficiary intentionally caused the death.
3. C.The proceeds are paid to the insured estate, bypassing the contingent beneficiaryThe estate takes only when no valid named beneficiary remains. A contingent beneficiary was named here.
4. D.The insurer retains the proceeds, since the policy is void when the beneficiary causes the insured deathThe policy is valid and the insurer must pay. Only the wrongdoer right to receive is extinguished.

Why: Under the slayer rule, adopted in some form everywhere, a beneficiary who intentionally and feloniously causes the death of the insured forfeits any right to the proceeds. Public policy will not let a wrongdoer profit from the killing. The proceeds are then distributed as though the disqualified beneficiary had PREDECEASED the insured, so they pass to the named contingent beneficiary, the daughter. Only if there were no contingent beneficiary would the proceeds fall to the insured estate. The rule reaches intentional killing; a beneficiary who causes death accidentally or negligently is not disqualified.

Corbin Fell is convicted of intentionally killing his mother, the insured, and he is the named primary beneficiary of her 600,000-dollar policy. His sister is the named contingent beneficiary. The policy itself says nothing about this situation. Who is paid?

1. A.Corbin, because the policy is a contract and the insurer must honour its terms as written.Public policy overrides the written designation. No one may profit from intentionally causing the death of the insured, whatever the contract says.
2. B.The sister, because under the slayer rule the killer forfeits the proceeds and is treated as though he had predeceased the insured.Correct. Forfeiture by the slayer routes the proceeds to the next taker in line, which here is the named contingent beneficiary.
3. C.Nobody; the proceeds escheat to the state.Escheat applies only when no taker can be found. Treating the slayer as predeceasing the insured produces a taker, so there is nothing to escheat.
4. D.Corbin's own estate, since his interest vested at the moment of the insured's death.Paying his estate would let his heirs enjoy the fruits of his crime, which is the precise result the slayer rule exists to prevent.

Why: Under the slayer rule, adopted by statute or by common law in every state, a beneficiary who intentionally and feloniously causes the death of the insured forfeits all interest in the proceeds. The claim is not extinguished; the slayer is simply treated as though he had PREDECEASED the insured, so the proceeds pass to the next taker in line, here the named contingent beneficiary. The rule rests on the principle that no one may profit from his own wrong, and it operates whether or not the policy mentions it.

Ingrid is the named primary beneficiary of her husband Anton's $900,000 policy. She is criminally convicted of intentionally causing his death. The policy names Anton's brother as contingent beneficiary. The insurer should pay:

1. A.Anton's brother, because a beneficiary who feloniously kills the insured is treated as having predeceased and the contingent beneficiary takesCorrect. The slayer rule disqualifies Ingrid and the policy's own succession carries the proceeds to the contingent beneficiary.
2. B.Anton's estate, because disqualifying the primary beneficiary invalidates every designation in the policyOnly the slayer is disqualified. The contingent designation is unaffected and takes priority over the estate.
3. C.Ingrid, but only after her criminal sentence is served, since the policy contains no exclusion for homicide by a beneficiaryThe slayer rule operates by law regardless of whether the policy contains such an exclusion, and forfeiture is permanent.
4. D.Nothing to anyone, because the intentional killing of the insured voids the policy and the insurer retains the proceedsThe policy remains valid. Only the wrongdoer's claim is defeated; the contract still pays.

Why: Under the slayer rule, applied in essentially every state, a beneficiary who intentionally and feloniously kills the insured forfeits all rights to the proceeds and is treated as having predeceased the insured. The proceeds then pass to the next eligible taker under the policy, which here is the contingent beneficiary. The rule rests on public policy: no one may profit from their own wrongdoing. The clue is the intentional, felonious nature of the killing.