Slayer rules in practice: four situations where a beneficiary is a suspect

The slayer rule says that a person who intentionally and unlawfully kills someone cannot profit from the death. For life insurance, a beneficiary who feloniously and intentionally kills the insured loses the right to the death benefit, and the money is paid as if that beneficiary had died first. The principle is easy to state. The hard part is what happens in the months between a death and a final answer, when a beneficiary is suspected but not convicted, or was tried and acquitted, or shares a policy with others.

The the slayer rule: when a beneficiary can't collect guide covers the law. This article walks through four invented households to show how the process tends to unfold. None of them is a real case, and the outcomes described are general patterns, not predictions. Each state writes its own version of the rule, and a lawyer in the right state is the person to ask about a real situation.

The rule in a few lines

Before the scenarios, a short reminder of the pieces that recur:

• Who is barred. A beneficiary who feloniously and intentionally kills the insured. The wording differs: some states reach an accomplice, and some statutes add words such as "unlawfully." Accidents and negligence are generally not covered.
• Who is paid instead. The killer is treated as having died before the insured, so the proceeds follow the rest of the beneficiary designation: a contingent beneficiary if one exists, other primary beneficiaries, then the policy's default order or the estate. The killer's own heirs do not receive the share through the killer.
• How it is decided. A final conviction is generally conclusive. Without one, a civil court can decide by a lower standard of proof, often "more likely than not," whether the killing was felonious and intentional. Examples include California's Probate Code section 252 and Florida's statute 732.802, which the guide describes.
• How the insurer is protected. An insurer that pays according to the policy before receiving written notice of a claim is generally protected. After it has notice, paying the wrong person is risky, so it often files an interpleader, depositing the money with a court so the claimants can settle it. See life insurance beneficiary disputes and interpleader.

Scenario 1: An arrest, but no conviction yet

The household (hypothetical). Marcus, 44, has a $500,000 policy. He named his wife, Elena, as primary beneficiary and his brother, Paul, as contingent beneficiary. Marcus is found dead at home, and police arrest Elena. She has not been tried.

What happens to the claim. The insurer receives a death certificate and a claim from Elena. The arrest is public, and Paul sends the insurer a written notice that he disputes any payment to Elena under the state's slayer statute. The insurer now has notice. It will not pay Elena while the question is open, because paying could expose it to a second claim from Paul.

The insurer can hold the claim, ask a court to sort it out through interpleader or wait for the criminal case. Interpleader moves the money into the court's hands, so the insurer no longer has to decide. Interest may accrue while the money is held; the interest on late life insurance claims guide explains the general rules.

How it resolves. If Elena is later convicted of felonious and intentional killing, the statute in many states treats the conviction as conclusive. She is treated as having died before Marcus. The $500,000 passes to Paul as contingent beneficiary. If the criminal case ends without a conviction, Paul or the estate may still ask a civil court to find, by the lower standard, that she killed Marcus intentionally. The point for the family: an arrest alone usually delays payment but does not decide it. Expect months or years, because these cases often wait for the criminal case.

Scenario 2: Acquitted, but the civil case continues

The household (hypothetical). Same facts, but this time Elena stands trial and is acquitted. She asks the insurer to pay her the $500,000.

What happens to the claim. An acquittal means the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily settle a civil question. In civil court the standard is lower, so a person can be acquitted of a crime and still lose a civil case about the policy proceeds. The statutes in states that follow the Uniform Probate Code model, and in states like Florida, say that without a conviction a court decides whether the killing was felonious and intentional by the greater weight of the evidence.

Practically, an acquittal makes it harder for Paul to win, and it makes the insurer's choice easier if Paul does not press the claim. If Paul has given written notice and does not withdraw it, the insurer may still choose interpleader rather than gamble on which standard a court would apply.

How it resolves. Either Paul gives up the claim, and the insurer pays Elena, or the civil court holds a hearing. The court hears evidence again under the lower standard. If it finds that Elena did not feloniously and intentionally kill Marcus, she receives the $500,000. If it finds that she did, the money goes to Paul. Both outcomes are possible, which is why a lawyer is useful here. The lesson: an acquittal is a strong fact for the beneficiary, but it is not an automatic release of the money.

Scenario 3: A co-beneficiary shares the policy

The household (hypothetical). Dana, 52, names her two adult children, Chris and Jamie, as equal primary beneficiaries of a $450,000 policy. She names no contingent beneficiary. Dana is killed, and Chris is convicted of intentionally killing her. Jamie files a claim.

The arithmetic. If both children were eligible, each would receive half: $450,000 × 1/2 = $225,000. The slayer rule treats Chris as having died before Dana, so Chris's share is not paid to Chris.

Where Chris's share goes depends on the form. There are two common possibilities:

1. The designation says surviving primary beneficiaries share the proceeds. Jamie receives the entire $450,000, because Chris is treated as not surviving.
2. The designation uses a different pattern, such as per stirpes language, a contingent beneficiary for each share or a policy default that sends an unclaimed share to the estate. Chris's $225,000 could pass to Chris's children (if any, and if the form so provides), to a named contingent beneficiary or to Dana's estate. Under per stirpes language, Chris's share would pass to Chris's descendants; the per stirpes vs per capita beneficiary designations guide explains how those words work.

Jamie is therefore sure of $225,000 and may receive $450,000, depending on wording that Dana chose years before. The insurer may file an interpleader if the form is unclear. The what happens if your beneficiary dies before you guide covers the parallel situation where a beneficiary simply died first, and the blog's when one of three beneficiaries dies first: who gets the share works through more arithmetic. The lesson for families: the beneficiary form's exact words matter, and a form that names contingent beneficiaries produces fewer disputes.

Scenario 4: A mental-health defense

The household (hypothetical). Sam, 60, names his son, Alex, as sole primary beneficiary of a $300,000 policy, with Sam's sister, Rita, as contingent beneficiary. Sam dies, and Alex is charged. Alex's lawyers raise a defense based on a serious mental illness at the time of the death. The criminal case ends in a verdict that the court describes as not guilty by reason of insanity.

What happens to the claim. This is the area where state law differs most. The slayer rule is aimed at a killing that is both "felonious" and "intentional." States answer differently when a person is found not responsible by reason of mental illness. In some states, a finding of insanity means the act was not felonious or not intentional in the legal sense, and the beneficiary is not barred. In others, a statute or court decision reaches the case anyway, or looks at the facts rather than the label. A few reach a different result depending on whether the killing was intentional, even if the person was not criminally responsible. The result in a real case cannot be predicted from general principles.

For the insurer, the situation is the same as in the earlier scenarios: written notice from Rita, an uncertain legal question and a large sum. It is likely to interplead the money and let the court decide.

How it resolves. A court applies the state's statute and case law. If it holds that Alex is barred, the $300,000 passes to Rita as contingent beneficiary. If it holds that he is not barred, he receives the money, though the funds may be managed for him through a guardian or trust if he is under a disability. The lesson: a mental-health defense does not give a predictable answer, and the family needs an attorney who knows the state's rule.

What the four situations have in common

Across the four, a few patterns repeat.

1. Written notice changes the insurer's behavior. Before notice, an insurer that follows the policy is generally protected. After notice, it tends to hold the money or interplead. If you believe a beneficiary should not be paid, tell the insurer in writing, promptly.
2. Delay is normal. The insurer is waiting for facts it cannot decide for itself. A lawsuit or a criminal case sets the pace.
3. Standards differ. A conviction is usually conclusive; without one, the civil standard is lower. That is why an acquittal is not the end.
4. The form decides where the money goes after a beneficiary is barred. Contingent beneficiaries and clear wording prevent a second dispute.
5. State law varies. Edge cases such as accomplices, manslaughter, assisted suicide and mental-health defenses are handled differently in different states.

Where the money sits while a case runs

Families often ask what happens to the money in the meantime. In general terms, there are three possibilities, and the insurer chooses among them with its own lawyers:

• The insurer holds the proceeds and keeps the claim open until the facts are clearer. Some states require interest on delayed benefits, and any interest that is paid is generally taxable even though the death benefit itself generally is not. Ask the insurer in writing whether interest is accruing.
• The insurer files an interpleader. It deposits the proceeds with a court, names the competing claimants and steps out of the dispute. The court then decides who is paid. Insurers sometimes ask the court to recover their legal costs from the deposited money.
• The insurer pays one claimant under a court order or an agreement among the parties, sometimes with a bond or a promise to return the money if a later ruling goes the other way.

An insurer that pays too early and without notice is generally protected, but a family should not count on a payment being safe until the questions are answered. A beneficiary who receives a payment and later loses a civil case may have to give it back.

Mistakes that make these cases harder

• Talking to the insurer before talking to a lawyer, if you are the person under suspicion. Statements can be used in court.
• Failing to give written notice when you believe a payment is improper. A phone call may not count, and an insurer that pays without notice is generally protected.
• Assuming the contingent beneficiary gets the money automatically. The contingent beneficiary is paid only if the rules say the primary beneficiary is barred, and a court may need to confirm that.
• Overlooking the policy owner. Where the owner and the insured are different people, the owner's rights can be affected by the same principle if the owner is the one accused. The state's statute and an attorney decide how.
• Ignoring the beneficiary form's wording when several people share a policy, as in the third scenario.

What to do if you are in one of these situations

1. Notify the insurer in writing of your claim or objection, and keep a copy. Send it by a method that gives proof of delivery.
2. Do not assume silence means agreement. Ask the insurer in writing what its position is and when it expects to act.
3. Gather the facts that matter: the policy and beneficiary form, any change forms, the death certificate, police and court records and the name of the lawyer handling any related case.
4. Talk to an attorney. The when to hire a life insurance lawyer guide explains when counsel is worth the cost. Disputes between claimants are a legal matter, not something the state insurance department decides.
5. Look at the rest of the estate. A suspected beneficiary may also have a claim to other property. The same rule can apply to a will and to other transfers, and an estate lawyer can explain how.
6. Expect a long timeline, and ask for status updates in writing.

A related point: if you are the beneficiary and are worried that suspicion might delay a payment, or if you have been wrongly accused, a lawyer is the right first call before you contact the insurer. Anything you say to the insurer can end up in the court record.

Key takeaways

• The slayer rule bars a beneficiary who feloniously and intentionally kills the insured, and the proceeds are paid as if that person had died first.
• An arrest usually delays payment, because an insurer that has written notice of a competing claim tends to hold the money or file an interpleader.
• A conviction is usually conclusive, while an acquittal may not end the matter, since a civil court can use a lower standard of proof.
• When one of several beneficiaries is barred, the beneficiary form's exact wording decides whether the others take the share, a contingent beneficiary does, or the estate does.
• Mental-health defenses, accomplices and other edge cases differ by state, so a lawyer in the right state is the right adviser.