Navigation Bar

< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Life Insurance
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

GEORGIA: Waggaman v. Franklin Life Insurance Co., ___ Ga. ___, 458 S.E.2d 826 (1995).
The doctrine of res judicata barred the former husband from pursuing an action for a declaratory judgment that he owned an insurance policy on his life, where the parties' divorce decree had awarded that policy to the wife.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

KENTUCKY: Hughes v. Scholl, 900 S.W.2d 606 (Ky. 1995).
The rights of an insurance policy beneficiary are not affected by the mere fact of a divorce between the beneficiary and the insured.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MICHIGAN: Massachusetts Indemnity & Life Insurance Co. v. Thomas, ___ Mich. App. ___, 520 N.W.2d 708 (1994).
Waiver provision in the parties' property settlement agreement meant that the former wife was not entitled to proceeds of a policy insuring the former husband's life, even though she herself had purchased the policy and paid the premiums.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW JERSEY: In re Santos, 283 N.J. Super. 26, 660 A.2d 1271 (Ch. Div. 1994) (released 1995).
A divorce alone does not impliedly revoke the designation of a former spouse as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OKLAHOMA: Bigbie v. Bigbie, 898 P.2d 1271 (Okla. 1995).
The husband's contractual right to future commissions for renewal premiums on life insurance policies was marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

TENNESSEE: Bell v. Bell, 896 S.W.2d 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Since the wife, as beneficiary, had only an expectancy in the husband's term life insurance policy, a temporary injunction generally prohibiting property transfers did not preclude him from changing beneficiaries during the divorce proceedings.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case



State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary