Court Opinion

ID: 9677455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:52:52.558201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.072564
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Chief Justice
dissenting.
Respectfully I dissent.
I would reverse and adopt the approach urged by appellant where when an insured is divorced, there is a rebuttable presumption that his or her former spouse is to be removed as a beneficiary from the insurance policy. Since all legal ties are extinguished when legally divorced, a divorced insured should and would reasonably expect that his or her spouse would no longer remain as a beneficiary on his or her policy.
The majority opinion emphasizes that other legally binding documents where spouses have legal interests are immediately affected by a divorce, but argues that they are distin*609guishable. These situations include will bequests and state retirement annuities. I do not find persuasive the majority’s argument that these are distinguishable from the case before us because they are statutorily enacted changes. The purpose behind these statutory enactments in the first place is precisely because it is reasonable for a person to expect that all interests would be void upon divorce.
By adopting the approach urged by appellant, both parties’ interests are protected. First, because it is reasonable the owner of the policy would expect the designation to be void, his interests are protected. Second, if the divorced insured wishes to maintain the beneficiary status of his or her ex-spouse, he or she may do so by redesignating that person after the date of the divorce decree.
As a result of the foregoing, I would overrule Ping v. Denton, Ky., 562 S.W.2d 314 (1978).
SPAIN, J. joins this dissenting opinion.