An example I see often is an employee who enrolls in a group life insurance plan through their work and has the premiums deducted from their paychecks. The employee, and their family, reasonably believes they are covered. But when they die, the life insurance company decides they were never eligible in the first place and refuses to pay the claim. This isn’t just a theoretical concern, I get calls from grieving beneficiaries all the time.

Most states have prohibitions on a killer inheriting from the person that they killed or receiving life insurance or annuity benefits. They are commonly called slayer prohibitions. In Arkansas, the slayer statute is found at Code section 18- 4- 205.

Like many other states, Oklahoma has a statute automatically revoking beneficiary designations in favor of former spouses. It is broad and does not apply just to life insurance. It also applies to many kinds of death benefit designations, including annuities, retirement accounts, CDs, security registrations, and other benefits payable on death of the owner. In the event of divorce or annulment of the marriage, the decedent’s former spouse shall be treated for all purposes under the contract as having predeceased the decedent.

A federal court in Oklahoma recently issued a decision in a life insurance beneficiary dispute involving several issues we commonly see. First, the designation of a former spouse as the beneficiary. Second, the doctrine of substantial compliance in a dispute regarding whether the insured changed the beneficiaries of his life insurance policy.

A recent case out of federal court in Ohio is interesting because the federal judge overturned several ERISA beneficiary designations. The judge found that the insured had lacked mental capacity to execute two of the designations and also that the designations were the product of undue influence.

Undue influence claims are not easy to prove, so this case is particularly notable. The insured was a long time employee of General Motors. Through the company he had life insurance, which was part of an ERISA plan because he obtained it through his employer. Thee administrator was the life insurance company, Metlife.

Generally courts are thrilled when the parties settle the case the court doesn't really ask questions or second guess the settlement. But there is one important exception and that is when the settlement involves a minor. Courts want to protect the interests of a minor and in that situation the judge will often require that the parties obtain approval for the settlement.