United Investors Life Insurance Co. v. Severson

143 Idaho 628, 151 P.3d 824 (2005)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United Investors Life Insurance Co. v. Severson

Idaho Supreme Court
143 Idaho 628, 151 P.3d 824 (2005)

Facts

Mary Severson and Larry Severson (defendant) were a married couple who resided in Idaho. Mary used community property to pay for a term life-insurance policy on her life through United Investors Life Insurance Company (United Investors) (plaintiff). Mary named Larry as the primary beneficiary of the policy but later changed the policy to name her mother, Carolyn Diaz, as the primary beneficiary. Months later, Larry murdered Mary, and United Investors filed a complaint for interpleader. The Idaho slayer statute, I.C. § 15-2-803(b), prohibited a party who was convicted of slaying a victim from acquiring property or any other benefit as a result of the victim’s death. However, under Idaho law, if a deceased spouse paid for a term life-insurance policy with community property, one-half of the proceeds became vested in the surviving spouse upon the decedent’s death. For that reason, the trial court found as an initial matter that Diaz was entitled to at least $100,000 of the $200,000 in proceeds. Once Larry was convicted of Mary’s first-degree murder, the trial court held, among other things, that Idaho law barred Larry from receiving a share of Mary’s term life-insurance proceeds. The trial court based its ruling on I.C. § 15-2-803(e), which barred a victim’s slayer from receiving proceeds from the victim’s estate by devise, legacy, or intestate succession. However, Larry and Diaz agreed that I.C. § 15-2-803(e) was inapplicable because life-insurance proceeds did not pass by devise, legacy, or intestate succession. Larry appealed, arguing, among other things, that Idaho law did not bar him from receiving one-half of the term life-insurance proceeds.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burdick, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership