To reach our decision, we first look to the Tennessee statute defining marital property. Under the definition set out above, pension rights, whether vested or unvested, have been determined to be marital property subject to distribution. Future income does not fall within the definition of marital property. Wife asserts that because the disability policies were issued to Husband during the marriage and the premiums were paid with marital funds, coupled with the fact that Husband's disability and receipt of benefits commenced during the marriage, all benefits received by Husband after the entry of the divorce decree constitute marital property. We believe, however, that the proper approach would be to first determine the purpose and essence of a disability income policy.
Disability insurance is a form of casualty insurance.
The protection sought and afforded by such a policy is the assurance of a stream of income which has been halted because of the happening of the event. We can analogize this to a fire insurance policy or any other property-type insurance policy one might have to protect against losses of property. If we assume that the parties' dwelling house is marital property as it mostly commonly is and assume that the dwelling house was destroyed prior to the dissolution of the marriage, it would not be questioned that the proceeds from this policy would stand in the place of the marital property and could be appropriately divided the same as if the house was still in existence. By the same token, a disability income policy has no value until such time as the casualty occurs, and the insurance is to protect against the inability of the insured to earn the income he would earn without a disability. Thus, it appears logical that the disability income benefits should stand in the place of earnings the insured would have had except for his disability.