- Amount
- $170,000 (contract proceeds disbursed to our client)
- Counsel
- Interpleader Law
- Result for
- The insured's former husband, the named beneficiary, our client
- Case
- Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Bloomquist
- Court
- U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
- Docket
- No. 2:17-cv-01555-JCM-NJK
- Decided
- July 3, 2018
- Issue
- Whether Nevada's or California's divorce rules governed a designation after a California divorce
The insured bought two life insurance contracts while married and named her husband as primary beneficiary on both. The couple divorced in California, and the decree did not mention the contracts. Well after the divorce, she moved to Nevada. After her death, the executor of her will contested payment to the former husband on the theory that Nevada’s revocation-on-divorce statute applied, and the insurer interpleaded both of them.
We represented the former husband. The executor was served but never appeared, and we moved for default judgment. The court confirmed that a claimant in an interpleader, not only the insurer, may obtain a default judgment, and it still decided the merits. California’s revocation statute does not reach life insurance, and California’s required divorce notice warns that a divorce does not automatically cancel a spouse’s beneficiary rights. Because the couple divorced in California under California law, and the insured moved to Nevada well afterward, the court held California law applied.
The court declared our client the lawful beneficiary, and the final judgment ordered the proceeds paid to him.
What it shows. The law of the state where a couple divorced can control a beneficiary dispute even when the insured later lived and died somewhere else.
Read the court's order
- Order granting default judgment and discharge (July 3, 2018) (PDF)
- Final judgment and order of interpleader disbursement (July 11, 2018) (PDF)
For a detailed legal summary of this decision, see interpleader.com's decisions library.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This summary describes the court's ruling; it is not legal advice about any other case.
Back to all results · Interpleader lawsuits · Beneficiary disputes