US Supreme Court upholds state divorce revocation statute
Many states have laws providing that life insurance designations in favor of spouses are revoked automatically by a divorce. The policy reasoning behind the laws is that many people simply fail to make a new designation after the divorce, but do not really want their ex-spouse to have the money. For example, the owner of the policy may get remarried, have kids, and yet the money may still be designated to the ex-spouse by simple neglect. The state laws are designed to remedy this situation, while often providing that the ex-spouse can still receive the money if the divorce decree so provides or if there is a re designation of the ex spouse after the divorce.
These laws have been the subject of various challenges over the years. Federal courts have consistently ruled that such laws are ineffective for ERISA policies, which include most policies obtained through an employer. Or for military SGLI or VGLI policies. The reasoning is that federal plan administrators are obligated to pay the designated beneficiaries and state laws that attempt to interfere with the designations are preempted by federal law.
In Sveen v. Melin the United State Supreme Court dealt with a different argument. Mark Sveen and Kaye Melin were married in 1997 and Sveen purchased a life insurance policy, naming Melin as the primary beneficiary and designating his two children from a prior marriage as contingent beneficiaries. The Sveen–Melin marriage ended in 2007 and the divorce decree made no mention of the insurance policy.
Sveen did not make a new beneficiary designations. After he died in 2011, Melin and the Sveen children made competing claims to the insurance proceeds. The Sveens argued that under Minnesota's revocation-on-divorce law, their father's divorce canceled Melin's beneficiary designation, leaving them as the rightful recipients. Melin claimed that because the law did not exist when the policy was purchased and she was named as the primary beneficiary, applying the later-enacted law to the policy violates the Constitution's Contracts Clause. The District Court awarded the insurance money to the Sveens, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the retroactive application of Minnesota's law violates the Contracts Clause.
The Contracts Clause of the US Constitution restricts the power of States to disrupt contractual arrangements. It provides that “[n]o state shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Article 1, Section 10. The major problem with the Minnesota law was that it applied to life insurance policies purchased before the law's adoption.
Despite its potential retroactive application, the Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's law did not violate the Contracts Clause. The Supreme Court found that that law did not substantially impair the relationship created by the life insurance contract between the policy owner and the insurance company. Most people reasonably do not want an ex-spouse to receive the benefits. And people expect that a divorce decree will alter previous property expectations. The court found it important that the insured could still leave the money to their former spouse if they so wanted. All they had to do was notify the insurance company after the divorce, to effectively re designate the former spouse as the beneficiary.
The Court summarized:
State laws differ on the implications of divorce on life insurance designations. It is always important to contact a lawyer to review the particular state laws at issue. And to determine if state law even applies or is preempted by federal law.