Washington Law Review
Abstract
The insurer interpleaded the insured's daughter as named beneficiary and the insured's wife to determine which was entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance contract paid from wages. The jury found that the deceased and his wife had agreed that the earnings of each should be separate property. Thus the verdict was for the daughter because the insured had complete ownership of the policy and could select any beneficiary he saw fit. Held on Appeal, reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the wife. There was insufficient evidence to establish the alleged separate property agreement. The trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that the premiums were paid with community funds and that the daughter had no right to the proceeds as beneficiary. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Brock; 41 Wn.2d 369, 249 P.2d 383 (1952).
First Page
236
Recommended Citation
Dale Riveland,
Recent Cases,
Community Property—Life Insurance,
28 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
236
(1953).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol28/iss3/16