Once it has been established that the insured has died and the policy death benefits are payable, the next question is, who is entitled to the policy benefits? This, of course, is controlled by the beneficiary designation. If there is a properly executed beneficiary designation, the party named therein will be entitled to the policy proceeds as long as he or she survives the insured.

With respect to the requirement that the named beneficiary must survive the insured, some insurance policies contain a provision such as the following:

These provisions are similar to the simultaneous death provisions that are sometimes included in a person�s will. The purpose of the requirement that the beneficiary survive the insured by a specified time period is to avoid the possibility that the insurance proceeds will have to pass through two estates in the event that the insured and his or her beneficiary die in a common disaster.

A legal entity such as a trust, a partnership, or a corporation may also be designated as a policy beneficiary. If so, that entity must also be in existence at the insured�s death. If the proceeds are to be paid to a trust, the insurance company will usually require that a copy of the deed of trust and the trustee�s acceptance of that position be filed with the company. Similarly, before insurance proceeds will be paid to the administrator or executor of an estate, the insurer will require copies of the official documents that appoint those persons to those positions.

It sometimes happens that there is no designated beneficiary to receive the policy proceeds. This can occur if all named beneficiaries have predeceased the insured or, in the rarer case, if there has been no valid designation of a beneficiary. The policy usually has a contractual provision for resolving this problem.

One policy provides this solution:

This is not the only contractual solution. Another policy provides as follows:

An interest in the policy proceeds may be permanently or temporarily assigned by the owner of the policy to a third party. This is frequently done when the policy is serving as collateral for a loan. Such collateral assignments are also frequently made in split-dollar life insurance. The following is a sample insurance policy provision covering the rights of assignees:

It is clearly the public policy of all jurisdictions in the United States that people should not be permitted to profit from their wrongful acts. Consequently, it is also public policy in the United States that a beneficiary should not be allowed to receive the proceeds of an insurance policy if the beneficiary kills the insured. When this public policy is converted into law, however, numerous complications arise. Whether a beneficiary is entitled to the proceeds after killing the insured is controlled by state statutes and state court decisions interpreting those statutes. Since state statutes are not indentical and the courts of one state are not bound by the decisions of the courts of another state, the law is not uniform throughout the United States. Nevertheless, the general rule is that killing the insured must be wrongful and intentional to preclude the beneficiary from receiving the death benefits.

As an example, state A�s statute stipulates that the beneficiary may not receive the insurance proceeds if he or she is convicted of murdering the insured. State B�s statute precludes the beneficiary from receiving the proceeds if he or she causes the wrongful death of the insured. Assume Sally intends to kill Mary, her husband�s mistress. However, her aim is poor and she shoots and kills her husband by mistake. She is likely to be convicted of something but probably not murder. In state A, if Sally has not been convicted of murder, she would not be precluded from receiving the insurance proceeds even if she is convicted of a lesser crime. In state B, Sally would be denied the proceeds because she caused the wrongful death of the insured.

Under the law of some states, the beneficiary may be acquitted of a crime involving the death of the insured yet still be denied the proceeds of the insurance policy. This can result if, after the acquittal, the insurance company denies the beneficiary�s claim for the death benefits. When this happens, the beneficiary can sue the insurance company, which will be a civil action, not a criminal trial. The standard of proof in a criminal action is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a civil action is merely proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that while there may not be enough evidence to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the beneficiary wrongfully and intentionally killed the insured, there may be enough facts to establish proof by a "preponderance of the evidence."

There are other defenses available to a beneficiary who has killed the insured. The killing must be both wrongful and intentional to preclude the insured from obtaining the proceeds. If the beneficiary can show that he or she acted in self-defense or in the defense of another person, the killing is not wrongful. If the beneficiary was insane (or otherwise incapable of forming an intent to kill) or the killing was accidental, then the killing was not intentional.