Source: http://fl.bna.com/fl/19990112/22293.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:18:51+00:00

Document:
insurance proceeds or pension funds, we reverse.
remove her as the beneficiary of the insurance policy.
they not be distributed to any party pending the outcome of this appeal.
Donna before the litigation commenced.
party.  Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wn.2d 491, 495, 951 P.2d 761 (1998).
ERISA because they were provided by David's employer, the Boeing Company.
756, 881 P.2d 216 (1994).
dissolution of marriage or a declaration of invalidity.
an alternate procedure for determining a beneficiary.  RCW 48.18.390.
In re Clise's Estates, 64 Wn.2d 320, 321, 391 P.2d 547 (1964).
insurance proceeds and the pension benefits.
Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 n. 21, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983).
De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Svcs. Fund, 520 U.S. 806, 117 S.
survive."  New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v.
Institute v. Great-West Life, 84 Wn. App. 863, 871-72, 930 P.2d 933 (1997).
emphasizing congressional intent and the purpose of ERISA.
the states unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."
Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wn. App. 110, 133, 951 P.2d 321 (1998).
N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 325, 117 S. Ct. 832, 136 L.Ed.2d 791 (1997).
supersede this type of . . . claim."  Kahn, 90 Wn. App. at 134.
preemption law is Emard v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 153 F.3d 949 953 (9th Cir.
1998) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 654 n. 3 (9th Cir.
"connection with" an ERISA plan.
Emard, 153 F.3d at 954.
is the existence of ERISA plans "essential to the law's operation."
is preempted only if it has a "connection with" ERISA benefit plans.
employee benefit plan is involved, between the employer and employee.
therefore does not alter plan administration.
beneficiary has a connection with ERISA and would therefore be preempted.
ERISA preemption, and their analyses therefore provide us little guidance.
against preemption of state family and family property law.
Emard, 153 F.3d at 959 (citing Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 117 S. Ct.
preempted.  Emard, 153 F.3d at 960-61 (citing Boggs, 117 S. Ct. at 1760).
benefits."  Coyne, 482 U.S. at 11.
the states.'"  Emard, 153 F.3d at 961 (citing Boggs, 117 S. Ct. at 1760).
will demand that state law be overridden.
interest.  Emard, 153 F.3d at 961.
narrowed; Emard follows that directive in a principled, logical manner.
apply to pension fund benefits.
2 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.
3 Defined by 26 U.S.C. sec.401(k).
4 Defined by 26 U.S.C. sec.408(a).
then those of more remote degree shall take by representation.
policy and would be angry if he knew Donna had received the proceeds.
to the pension proceeds via the dissolution decree.
1.  To your surviving spouse.
2.  If there is no surviving spouse, to your children in equal shares."
the event there is no designated beneficiary. . ."  RCW 48.24.160.
under section 1003(b) of this title.
(1987).  In Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 139, 111 S. Ct.
those laws merely supplemented the Act and were consistent in purpose."
relations orders affecting beneficiary designations."  See, e.g. Carland v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 1114, 1121 (10th Cir. 1991).
728, 732 n.2, 756 P.2d 731 (1988); Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am. v.
Richman Bros., 348 U.S. 511, 75 S. Ct. 452, 99 L.Ed. 600 (1955).
Life Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 82 F.3d 126 (6th Cir. 1996).
the decision to make payment to the named beneficiary.  RCW 11.07.010(3).
at the time of his death opposed his ex-wife's collecting under the policy.
retain the named beneficiary as the one entitled to the proceeds.
entitled to the proceeds."  Wadsworth, 102 Wn.2d at 663.
monthly basis as a benefit of employment by the Boeing Company."
Ninth Circuit's opinion in Emard, for a contemporary analysis.
seek to recover from it the proceeds wrongly paid to Donna.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.