Insurance Law came to the United States to confirm the status of the spouse beneficiary rules to write papers reviewed _ Network

Write papers network: [Abstract] American insurance Law on the status of the former spouse's life insurance beneficiary to confirm the applicable rules can be divided into four categories, namely irrefutable presumption rules, only explain the division of property agreement with the intention to explore the rules of the insured to investigate all relevant facts in order to explore the intent of the insured person can not refute the revocation of the rules and regulations. The main difference between the four asked whether the Court's intention to explore the insured, and the need to explore the facts should be considered when the scope of the court. the insured person's intention should be respected, the court's goal should be reasonable to explore the intent of the insured based on the distribution of life insurance contract benefits.

[Paper Keywords] life insurance beneficiary, beneficiary; former spouse

Modern life insurance policy through insurance payments and dividends to share both the life and security, financial protection and wealth management services and other functions, it has become America's most family financial plan and an essential part of family affairs at the same time, American society frequent phenomenon in the divorce and there is a rising trend. "household composition (such as a new member of the birth, divorce) will affect the ideal continuation of the contract," divorce, the court's division of property agreement or divorce decree or agreement is usually the insured person decision life insurance policy owner, the designated beneficiary on the policy, however, still ex-spouse. if they are not insured and does not change the beneficiary of death, was a former spouse is still in favor? In other words, the divorce would not affect the former spouse beneficiary status?
Similar problems in the judicial practice of China's insurance is not uncommon, however, the terms of China's insurance Laws and insurance regulations on this issue of the very few, only of the principles and provisions are quite abstract, inadequate application of view of this, this paper introduce the United States approached the Insurance Law to confirm the status of the spouse's life insurance beneficiary rules, its essence, to adopt their point, and a little ginseng humble opinion, on their success, learning from them.


First, the U.S. insurance Law came to confirm the status of the spouse's life insurance beneficiary rules

U.S. state court rules applicable to state legislators can be roughly divided into four categories, analysis is as follows:
(A) can not rebut the presumption rules
Irrefutable presumption rule is of course the divorce itself does not terminate the former spouse beneficiary status, and property division agreement and divorce decree does not automatically terminate the status of former spouse beneficiary, unless the former spouse in property division agreement expressly waived Life insurance beneficiary, or revocation of divorce decree clearly beneficial interest of the former spouse, or before the death of the insured in the "substantial completion" insurer beneficiaries of the change process required to change the beneficiary, or former spouse entitled to receive insurance money , the court made no ruling that the insurer may intend to review any relevant facts, they do not consider the result did not change the beneficiary of the insured person is not normal because even if the only beneficiary of the policy the insured person is described as a "wife", The same rule applies because the court generally that "wife" is the word "descriptive rather than restrictive," and words "wife" does not indicate a limited but is used to determine the identity, Who describes the benefits specified in view of this, the identity change - his wife into his ex-wife - does not affect the beneficiary eligibility. in particular should pay attention to who, if the divorce decree to make clear that life insurance beneficiary issues such as withdrawal or the keeping former spouse beneficiary, such provisions have a continuing legal effect, regardless of whether the insured person subsequently change the beneficiary. For example, if the divorce decree order the insured change the beneficiary, but the insured did not follow, then the court's final would think that the insured did not "substantially complete" procedural matters and insurance will all Pangui former spouse.

The so-called "substantial completion" means the insured person must be reasonably complete and should be able to complete all the acts to meet the beneficiaries of the policy changes agreed on the procedural requirements generally believed that "substantial completion" rules "actually made two requirements: first, the insured must have the intent to change beneficiaries, and the second, the insured must take positive actions, basically stated its intentions. "In other words, if the policy holder in order to meet policy agreed on the procedural requirements have done all can do, but because of reasons beyond its control, the failure to comply with the policy agreed on the procedural requirements, then the beneficiary shall be considered effective to change behavior, therefore, policy holders if they wish to change the beneficiary, then he can not just show such intent, he should take substantive action to achieve this intent.

"Substantial completion" rules of the United States to change the beneficiary on the insurance Law the general rule, it just helps to determine the behavior of the insured's compliance with program requirements change. However, even with the application of this rule are provided, "there 'gray' area is inevitable." Moreover, the court's "substantial completion" standard remains controversial. What is "real", not the law stipulates and consensus. This decision depends on how the court when the case admissible and the jury what facts and evidence when the court can not rebut the presumption rules apply after the divorce, the beneficiary of life insurance the insured person to change behavior seems more likely to belong to a gray area, because the courts do not consider the result did not change the beneficiary of the insured person is not the normal reasons.

Irrefutable presumption rules to obtain the support of most U.S. courts, which is a major rule. The reason why most courts are to follow this rule, because the following reasons: (1) life insurance policy is essentially a contract, the court Just review the contract itself and should respect the terms of the contract, while the general rules of contract law applicable to the adjudication of cases, the beneficiary is not the right to receive insurance money from the marital relationship and the existence of the contract but on the acquisition, (2) the division of property agreement or the effect of divorce decree should be defined only in accordance with its contents, and the division of property agreement or divorce decree is generally only provides that "property rights" without rule "expect interest" of ownership, beneficial interest as a "look interests" rather than " property rights ", and the former spouse is generally only in the division of property agreement expressly waived all" property rights "and did not give up," expect interest ", (3) any real intention of the insured person has speculated that the potential uncertainty and therefore invalid, and will lead to unnecessary litigation, or result in the judicial practice of the disorder, confusion and inefficiency, (4) the insured person died before the divorce can be easy to implement generally the beneficiaries did not put into action to change behavior .

However, the rules can not refute the presumption of fact and easy to cause unreasonable unfair verdict. Follow the rules of the court can not refuse to rebut the presumption of any credible evidence to explore the intention of the insured, the insured person, such as leaving enough to change the beneficiary that intent of the written document, ask the beneficiary to the insurer to change the behavior of the application form, etc. According to this rule, any property not in the divorce decree or separation agreement clearly indicates the intention of the former spouses is irrelevant, does not have the slightest binding of this, can not rebut the presumption rules apply to the court's decision may be contrary to the majority of the insured person's intentions, because the insurer's life after divorce will dramatically change the environment, living in the new environment are very different, most of them were Insurers will not want his former spouse is still the subject of their life insurance policy for the insurance beneficiary. Not only that, the former spouse is often a result of the insured person's negligence or error benefit. To avoid the above drawbacks and to reduce the unfair decision, some jurisdictions under the jurisdiction of the court to allow that to be admissible evidence of the insured intended the beneficial interest of the former spouse and then withdraw.


(B) only explain the division of property agreement with the intention to explore the rules of the insured
The court held that such rules apply, even if the property division agreement does not explicitly mention the expectations of the former spouse receive insurance benefits that the right to expect, or even if the former spouse in property division agreement not expressly waived in the beneficiary, the property can also be explained separation agreement in terms to explore the intention of the insured, if the insured person intends to revoke the former spouse on the beneficial interest, then such purported revocation of former spouse beneficiary of the effect, however, the Court also insisted that only can be by identifying the division of property agreement terms to search for the insured person's intentions, any other relevant facts are not considered within the scope of, for example, the insured person has the intention to change the beneficiary informed his secretary. This rule is different from irrefutable presumption rules because, according to the latter, the beneficiary in the property division agreement expressly limited to the way they expect to give up the benefits, only to give up all the "property rights" expressly does not produce to give up, "looking forward to the interests' of the results .

However, with the insurance laws and regulations and in academic research on the benefits of life insurance ownership and look forward to an increasingly clear distinction between such "interpretation of the text" - confined to the property division agreements - view seems to be come to an end, vanished. Beyond surprisingly, some courts still follow this rule of interpretation. The court held that the usual division of property agreement terms - to give all property rights - meaning expressed can be interpreted as the insured's intent to terminate the former spouse beneficiary when the property division agreements are usually present in one language, the the court may sentence the ex-spouse beneficiaries to terminate the status of: (1) give up all inherit her husband's property rights; (2) the spouse of each party were to give up since then - divorce - property division to the other spouse's ownership interest, (3) all life insurance owned by the insured, and both sides have to give up all claims to each other's property rights, (4) to give up any property in the other spouse on any distribution of benefits, or any other type or nature of interests with term is usually like this everywhere. It follows, though not expressly mentioned in the division of property and life insurance policies on the beneficiary, but the parties abandoned the broad consensus between the interests of the insured person covered enough to remove a former spouse looking forward to the interests of the intent, if the division of property agreement can be reasonably interpreted to include a revocation of beneficial intent, then the intention to become a reality.

The validity of this rule is questionable. Different from the policies enforceable property rights, the beneficial interest is only an expectation interest to give up all the property rights of the desired result does not include the intention to give up looking forward to the interests of these decisions can be explained pursuit of a fair outcome for the Court, compared to rebut the presumption under non-judgments, fairness judgments more in line with the dead - the insured person's intention, though there are shortcomings of the kinds of rules, however, no doubt, than follow the irrefutable consequences of the rules applicable to such rules to achieve more correct results through analysis of the contents of the division of property agreement to explore the true meaning of the insured, "is the right direction toward a big step."

(C) the investigation of all relevant facts to the insured person intends to explore the rules
Some state courts to give the dead - the insured person may intend to legal effect, not rigidly adhere to protocol and policy analysis division of property on the terms specified beneficiaries, but the overall investigation of all relevant facts that the court has the right to investigate all relevant facts in order to explore the intention of the insured, a shorter duration of marriage, there is hostility between the former spouses, former spouses until after the insured dies are all aware of the existence of the policy should consider the fact that , and the court's decision should indicate who is the beneficiary of all possible relevant evidence.

For example, in LifeInsurance C0, ofNorthAmerica v, Cassidy's case, the California Supreme Court first recognized the common life insurance on the property interests and expectations of the difference between interest and therefore can not be based only on the division of property before the termination of the agreement term is usually the beneficiary spouse position, even if the wife has separate property agreement to abandon all for the insured person's current and future claims. The court also found, the insured life to its former accounting has issued a directive requiring its accounting to support his ex-wife from Some of the lists of beneficiaries for all policies removed Unfortunately, the suit is not in its accounting policy folder, so the existence of the suit until the policyholder dies before the insured caused by its accounting attention. The court held that, despite being the insurer's ex-wife is still the policy of the designated beneficiary and the property division agreement does not seem to mention doing, coupled with the fact that the division of property agreement is sufficient to revoke the expectations of the former spouse benefits. Links to free download http://www. hi138.com However, some courts held that the rule's application is a prerequisite for the division of property agreement or divorce decree must have a separate life insurance policy that the intent of the content, otherwise the court can not be accepted as other relevant facts to decide cases based on the same time Some courts also want lawmakers to pass legislation beneficial to confirm the former spouse clearly defined rules to avoid unfair results between different court rules on the conditions applicable to this dispute, the rule applies to the results of this in flux, chaos resulting.


(D) make laws, be divergent only fight - irrefutable rules revoked
In order to terminate the former spouse beneficiary issues around the chaos generated, some states have passed statutes for divorce and the rights of policy owners and beneficiaries of the impact of, for example, clearly states: the revocation of divorce, spouses receive the life insurance payment. Legislators hope through the development of law requires both spouses before the divorce decree clearly in the interests and expectations of all relevant issues, for example, Michigan law has been made through the development of such a provision: "Every decision should be made clear his wife a divorce on any life insurance contract or insurance policy All rights ... if the divorce decree does not explicitly wife life insurance policies, pension or annuity on which to enjoy the rights, then the insurance payment should be paid to the husband's estate, or other designated beneficiary, if the husband to make such specified words. "Accordingly, unless the contrary provisions of divorce decree, divorce terminates the ex-spouse beneficiary. Prudential Insur-ance co.V.Irvine case law is applicable to the development of a typical case. case, although there is evidence that the insured was witnessed in the case of delivery of the policy ex-wife and ex-wife has declared willingness to make policy, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to recognize the ex-wife in the death benefit and enjoy any benefits. Michigan court insurance for the insured's estate ultimately owned by the insured all the new wife, because divorce decree in the suit did not mention insurance, if the insured wish to divorce his ex-wife still enjoys the beneficial interest in it must be re-designated as the beneficiary of his ex-wife. that real intention of the insured The ex-wife is still the original evidence and other facts the court designated beneficiary are not considered. The court held that the insured has been fully capable of the complete re-designated as the beneficiary of his ex-wife's program, if not complete, the court eliminates the need for insurance for equitable distribution.

New York State statutory law on this issue is more narrow scope of application of the provisions, only the current spouse as the beneficiary and can not be changed when there is adultery, not to change the beneficiary into a beneficiary can be changed. And that such provisions can only be insured by person's application to application, however, such statutes may now only has historical value and because New York State has authorized the courts of other statutes can be handled more extensively on the life insurance policy relevant interests. In addition, some courts have expressed the hope that they legislators to develop and Michigan statutes similar laws to reduce the allowed former spouses receive insurance money generated is not fair.

Michigan statutes established by the rules can be called a non-counter withdrawal rules, the war ended to be divergent and respect for the majority of the insured person's intentions, however, the results of its application may be counterproductive. Irvine case ruling that Michigan statutes on the termination of former spouse beneficiary status provisions may be too far. Despite this irrefutable irrefutable presumption of revocation of rules and the rules against each other, but the results are applicable to both the insured person may lead to the intention of worthless.


Second, evaluate and learn

(A) the alternative - to refute the revocation of rules
By analyzing the pros and cons of various rules, we can find a better rule, that Michigan statutes make some modifications to the rules will be changed to remove non-rebuttal rebuttal may revoke rules, that is divorced spouse's benefits before the termination the status, insurance should therefore be paid to other beneficiaries, or if no other beneficiary should be designated as the insured's estate, but can be acceptable evidence to the contrary by the court to refute, and thus prove that the former spouse entitled to receive insurance money .

We will find that a rebuttable presumption of revocation of rules and argue both sides of a coin Jingsi rules, and perhaps will give the insured person's intent to legal effect, it can minimize the unfair ruling, which in most case can achieve optimal results. rebuttable only revoke rules to solve the problem of legislative approaches, and a rebuttable presumption rule is to hear cases of judicial approaches.


(B) the insured person's intentions should be respected
Despite the irrefutable presumption rules currently dominant, but it must be the initiator of most of the results of unfair U.S. state courts have been hovering in the search of the intent of the insured person on the road, even hesitant, making it difficult to determine what application to confirm rules of divorce and division of property will result in changes in identity and responsibility, even worse, a divorce the parties cross-raw evil. Most of the insured person after the divorce will no longer want him as a former spouse is still the subject of their life for the insurance insurance beneficiaries, their only hope for their loved ones with life protection.

Our courts hear cases related to United States can learn on the practice of insurance law, as far as possible to explore the true meaning of the insured person. The fact should be noted: (1) divorce to the death of the time span during which the physical condition of the deceased and the manner of death can provide valuable evidence to explain why the insured person does not change the beneficiary, died suddenly shortly after the divorce and had suffered from diseases that the insured may have been because of uncontrollable reasons not to make the necessary changes, (2 ) life after divorce, further environmental changes, such as remarriage or birth of a child, the insured person can not hope that his former spouse from the insurance benefit, (3) divorce led to hostility, hatred, hatred is a factor to be considered, ( 4) Any insured that intention in writing; (5) to take action to remove a former spouse beneficiary, but there is no "substantial completion" under the program, but also should consider the relevant facts.

In addition, other relevant evidence to support the former spouse of the insured people want to receive insurance money: (1) only if the insured on the policy change some of the beneficiaries, so that he may not wish to change the beneficiary on the other policies, (2) the insured person can publicly re-affirmed the former spouse as beneficiary, or insured by the new policy and designate a former spouse as the beneficiary, or by words or other acts that such an intention, (3) the former spouse of the question continued interest in the love relationship is also an important consideration, (4) the policy delivered to the former spouse can show that the intention of the insured - hopes expect interest affected, (5) After a long period of time does not change the beneficiary, in particular, when there is evidence that the insured knew the existence of such a policy can also show that the insured person does not intend to change.

In summary, the goal has been to court should be reasonably based on the intention to explore the distribution of the deceased the deceased's property. Links to free download http://www.hi138.com