by jhart » Sat Jan 09, 2010 01:36 am
My ex-husband had a life insurance policy with me named as the beneficiary. There is no will identifying his new wife as the beneficiary. The insurance company is saying that they believe they do not need to pay me. Thoughts?
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 03:15 am Post Subject:
Thoughts? Many...
The primary thought is this: if you are the legally named sole primary beneficiary then you are entitled to the funds. Pretty simple.
You stated:
There is no will identifying his new wife as the beneficiary.
Wills cannot change beneficiary designations. Period.
You also wrote:
The insurance company is saying that they believe they do not need to pay me.
They are required by law, if you are a party to the contract as the named beneficiary, to provide you with a written and permitted under law reason as to why they aren't paying you. They said that they "believe" they don't "need" to pay you. Excuse me, but what the heck does that mean?
Not you, but what the heck are they saying? That doesn't give you any information and is a pretty glib response to any question.
I would contact the insurer/persons you have spoken with and ask them where they are in the process. Again, if you are a named party, you have a right to this information. Any claim denial must be in writing to you within a certain period of time after the death of the insured except for certain, rare instances. As well, the death benefit must be paid within a certain time period after the insurer receives any required documents, such as a death certificate and proof of loss. Commonly, if the death benefit isn't paid within a certain time frame, interest must be included within the payment when it is finally paid. This stuff varies by state, but is pretty standardized law.
Finally, if you could be a liiiiiitle more specific as to what happened, I think that we could help you a little more.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 03:40 am Post Subject:
X2
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 06:49 am Post Subject:
I guess we assume the ex- has died? Or is the OP trying to find out if she is still the named beneficiary? That might explain the cryptic "we believe we don't have to pay you" (which I would suspect is a poorly articulated version of what was actually said) . . . "You're which 'Mrs. Jones'?"
Other than that, InsTeacher has it right.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:14 pm Post Subject: ex wife beneficiary - company will not pay
According to insurance company they say Colorado law prohibits them from paying the ex-wife - that it will have to go to probate court. My daughter talked to a probate lawyer and he agrees and says that it will cost $10000 + and that the new wife is entitled to 5% for every year they were married (1.5 years - she is a prostitute in the Phillipines). I am the ex-wife and am not interested in the money. I just wanted it for my 2 daughters, which I know my ex-husband would have wanted. It just doesn't seem right to me and I'm not sure what way to turn....
As it is, my daughter is probably going to go through the court system to become executor and then to divide any remaining funds between her and her sister.
And yes, the ex has died and the insurance company has the death certificate.
This law had to be created by the lawyers - it is totally in their benefit to make laws such as this. It seem criminal to me.
Thoughts?
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:16 pm Post Subject: Ex wife beneficiary
And yes - I am the beneficiary named. I have all of the documentation.
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 07:21 pm Post Subject:
I have never heard of anything like you proposed in your post. If you are the named beneficiary, everything that I can find regarding Colorado law says that you get the money. Please refer to the following information copied from the Association of American Law Schools at http://www.aals.org/profdev/family/gary2.html:
Caselaw
Most courts have refused to revoke beneficiary designations or trust provisions favoring ex-spouses. Courts treat the beneficiary designations as subject to contract law, and not wills law. Courts are waiting for legislatures to act.
A. Insurance
1. Contract law. Courts treat insurance as governed by the contract. If the owner did not comply with the contractual rules to change the beneficiary, then the named beneficiary receives the proceeds. Divorce does not affect the insurance policy. Courts have described this approach as applying presumed intent - the fact that the owner did not change the beneficiary designation indicates that the owner intended that the ex-spouse remain the beneficiary.
Notice that the quote mentions that they are still waiting for the Legislature to act. I haven't been able to find specifics here, so there may have been something enacted that obviates this rule, but again- I can't find anything.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 07:36 pm Post Subject:
Some states have divorce provisions where if the beneficiary is named as the former spouse and never changed, the beneficiary designation does not apply. I can probably dig up a copy of one of these statements if needed, though I don't have one for Colorado.
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 05:32 am Post Subject:
it is probate law. I don't know what state you are in but Colorado statute is 15-11-804
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 09:55 pm Post Subject:
So what was the development? Did you already get the insurance money for your daughters?
Add your comment