Law and sources
State Law Differences: Divorce, Slayer, Simultaneous Death, Community Property, and Interest
The same beneficiary dispute can come out differently depending on which state's law governs. These tables compare the rules that most often decide interpleader cases, with a source and a check date for every row.
On this page
How to use these tables
Each table covers one rule that frequently decides who gets a disputed benefit. Every row names the statute, summarizes what it does in plain English, and links to the text the editors read, with the date it was checked. Detailed pages cover all 50 states plus the District of Columbia:
Texas
Divorce revocation for life insurance and retirement plans, 120-hour survival, and the 90-day pay-or-interplead rule.
State guideLouisiana
The 2024 divorce-revocation law, concursus, slayer rules after a conviction, and 60-day payment.
State guideCalifornia
Why the divorce statute skips life insurance, clear-and-convincing survival proof, and the community-property backdrop.
State guideFlorida
Ex-spouse designations void by statute, strict compliance for beneficiary changes, and interest from proof of death.
State guideIllinois
The divorce-statute rule for life insurance, substantial compliance, and 10% interest on slow death claims.
State guideMissouri
Nonprobate transfer rules for divorce and slayers, a demanding substantial-compliance test, and vexatious refusal.
State guideNew York
Divorce revocation under EPTL 5-1.4, the Riggs v. Palmer slayer rule, 120-hour survival, and CPLR 1006 interpleader.
State guideAlabama
Divorce revocation since 2015 and whether it reaches older divorces, the slayer rule, and Rule 22 interpleader.
State guideAlaska
A slayer statute reaching felonious killings, and divorce revocation read as a presumption.
State guideArizona
Revocation without a decree after a common law marriage, and civil slayer findings that need real evidence.
State guideArkansas
Substantial compliance, capacity, and an Eighth Circuit limit on interpleader as a shield.
State guideColorado
A letter that changed the beneficiary without the insurer's form, against a bankruptcy trustee.
State guideConnecticut
Following the policy procedure, substantial compliance, and constructive-trust limits.
State guideDelaware
A slayer statute tied to homicide offenses, and a divorce rule found only for wills.
State guideDistrict of Columbia
No divorce-revocation statute for insurance, settlement agreements, and federal overrides.
State guideGeorgia
Divorce decrees that must identify the policy, clear-and-convincing slayer proof, and fee denials.
State guideHawaii
Revocation when a marriage or reciprocal beneficiary relationship ends, and a manslaughter plea.
State guideIdaho
Community property claims and timing disputes under the divorce-revocation statute.
State guideIndiana
A constructive trust instead of revocation for slayers, and a telephone change that justified interpleader.
State guideIowa
A slayer statute that waits for the criminal case, and what happens when the accused beneficiary dies.
State guideKansas
"Feloniously killing" read as intentional, a manslaughter conviction that fell short, and the common-law rule.
State guideKentucky
A forfeiture statute that requires a conviction and reaches elder abuse.
State guideMaine
Felonious and intentional killings, decided by a federal court in Idaho under a plan choice-of-law clause.
State guideMaryland
A former spouse re-named after the divorce, and a designation shared by three women with the same name.
State guideMassachusetts
The automatic restraining order once a divorce is filed, § 2-804, and when federal court is the wrong forum.
State guideMichigan
Divorce judgments that must decide insurance rights, and ERISA payment followed by state-law claims.
State guideMinnesota
The statute upheld in Sveen v. Melin, and Minnesota law following a policy across state lines.
State guideMississippi
A slayer statute that needs evidence, not suspicion, and shares for minor children.
State guideMontana
A divorce statute that reaches life insurance, and ERISA preemption for employer plans.
State guideNebraska
No reach-back to a 1988 divorce, decree wording, and an aid-and-abet slayer rule.
State guideNevada
A 2011 revocation statute made retroactive, and restoring a former spouse by a clear new designation.
State guideNew Hampshire
The common-law rule that divorce alone does not remove a former spouse.
State guideNew Jersey
A divorce statute that yields to the agreement, and civil slayer findings.
State guideNew Mexico
Revocation that reaches a divorce finished after death, read as a rebuttable presumption.
State guideNorth Carolina
Online changes that met the insurers procedure but failed state law, and the Slayer Act.
State guideNorth Dakota
Slayer law alongside ERISA, and undue-influence claims tried to a jury.
State guideOhio
A former spouse deemed to have predeceased, decrees that do not rewrite old policies, and civil slayer proof.
State guideOklahoma
A divorce statute in the contracts title, ERISA preemption in the Tenth Circuit, and choice of law.
State guideOregon
Judgment language that revokes, partial restoration for support, and intent over paperwork.
State guidePennsylvania
Guardians and court orders, divorce revocation during pending divorces, and elder abusers.
State guideRhode Island
Fees denied to an insurer that took sides, and Family Court decrees under ERISA.
State guideSouth Carolina
Divorce revocation that reaches life insurance, the slayer statute, and a claimed forgery.
State guideSouth Dakota
Slayer rulings on guilty pleas, and oral contracts under the divorce exception.
State guideTennessee
Marital dissolution agreements under Holt v. Holt, and constructive trusts after ERISA pays.
State guideUtah
Revocation with no grandfathering, a former spouse who owned the policy, and notice to insurers.
State guideVermont
An agent under a power of attorney naming himself as beneficiary.
State guideVirginia
Property settlements that override the beneficiary form, the decree notice, and Hillman v. Maretta.
State guideWashington
Revocation for all nonprobate assets, payor holds, Egelhoff, and child-support security that voids changes.
State guideWest Virginia
No automatic revocation on divorce, settlement-agreement waiver, and substantial compliance.
State guideWisconsin
Revocation that reaches the former spouse's relatives, extrinsic evidence of intent, and older policies.
State guideWyoming
Older federal decisions treating divorce and the settlement agreement as contract questions.
State guideStates not listed in a table have not yet been reviewed for that rule. Absence from a table does not mean the state has no such rule.
Many disputed benefits are governed by federal law. The Supreme Court has held that ERISA preempted Washington's revocation-on-divorce statute as applied to an ERISA plan, and that federal law controls FEGLI and military life insurance despite conflicting state rules. See federal programs and key decisions.
Revocation on divorce
These statutes cancel a former spouse’s beneficiary designation when a marriage ends, unless an exception applies. For the general rule and the federal exceptions, see Divorce.
| State | Statute | What it covers | Main exceptions | Source, checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.301, 9.302 | Life insurance (§ 9.301); IRAs, stock options, and savings, profit-sharing, retirement and other financial plans (§ 9.302). Does not apply to public retirement systems. | The decree names the former spouse; the insured re-designates the former spouse after the decree; or the former spouse is named in trust for or for the benefit of a child or dependent. | Texas Statutes · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. 22:911.1 (life insurance, annuities); La. R.S. 9:2449.1 (pension, profit-sharing, retirement plans) | Revocable designations of a former spouse, if the divorce came after the designation and the parties were still divorced at death. Enacted 2024; applies only to beneficiaries named after the act took effect. | A judgment or property-settlement agreement that expressly provides otherwise. | La. Legislature, § 22:911.1; Act text (SB 49) · Oct 29, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Prob. Code § 5040 | Nonprobate transfers to a former spouse, such as many account and trust designations. Expressly excludes a provision of a life insurance policy. | The transfer was not revocable at death; clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended to keep it; or a court order in effect at death preserving it. | California Legislative Information · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 732.703 | Designations of a former spouse made before the divorce, for a Florida resident dying on or after July 1, 2012: life insurance, annuities, employee benefit plans, IRAs, payable-on-death and transfer-on-death accounts. | Controlling federal law; a post-divorce instrument expressly naming the former spouse; certain divorce-order requirements; irrevocable designations; instruments governed by another state’s law; remarriage to the former spouse; state retirement plans under ch. 121. | Florida Senate · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Illinois | 750 ILCS 5/503(b-5) | A life insurance designation of the spouse made before a judgment of dissolution, for a policy in force at the judgment. Does not apply to ERISA, FEGLI or other preempting federal law. | The judgment names the former spouse; the insured re-designates the former spouse; or the former spouse takes in trust for or for the benefit of a child or dependent. | Illinois General Assembly · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.051 | Beneficiary designations in nonprobate transfers in favor of the former spouse or the former spouse’s relatives. The definitions do not mention life insurance by name. | Irrevocable designations or those revocable only with the spouse’s consent; designations made after the divorce; designations stating that divorce does not affect them. Revived by remarriage to the former spouse. | Missouri Revisor · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 30-4-17 | Revocable dispositions to a former spouse or the spouse’s relatives in an instrument signed before the divorce, including beneficiary designations. Took effect Sept. 1, 2015; the Alabama Supreme Court calls it a prospective default rule, and a federal court held it does not reach a 2003 divorce. | The instrument, a court order or a property-division contract provides otherwise; the former spouse is listed as owner of the policy or pays premiums after the divorce; remarriage to the former spouse revives. | Alabama Legislature · Oct 29, 2026 |
| New York | N.Y. EPTL § 5-1.4 | Revocable dispositions to a former spouse, including life insurance beneficiary designations and (to the extent permitted by law) pension or retirement plan designations; also applies after a judicial separation. A federal court applied it where a separation agreement did not mention the policy. | The express terms of a governing instrument, including the policy, a court order or a property-division contract between the spouses; remarriage to the former spouse revives. | Justia (unofficial) · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 524.2-804 | Revocable dispositions and beneficiary designations to a former spouse and the former spouse’s relatives. Upheld against a Contracts Clause challenge in Sveen v. Melin. | The governing instrument, a court order, or a property-division contract provides otherwise. | Minnesota Revisor · Oct 29, 2026 |
Slayer statutes
Each detailed state bars a killer from collecting, but they reach the result differently. The slayer rule guide has a sourced table for all 50 states and D.C.
| State | Statute | Who is barred | Effect of a criminal case | Source, checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | Tex. Ins. Code §§ 1103.151–.152 (life insurance) | A beneficiary who is “a principal or an accomplice in wilfully bringing about the death of the insured.” | The statute turns on the conduct, not on a conviction. Proceeds go to the contingent beneficiary or, if none, the insured’s nearest relative. | Texas Statutes · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. 22:901(D) (insurance); La. Civ. Code art. 941 (successions) | A beneficiary held criminally responsible by final judgment, or judicially determined to have participated in the intentional, unjustified killing. | A federal court applying the insurance provision treated a conviction as a final judgment even while an appeal was pending. See Louisiana. | La. Legislature · Oct 29, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Prob. Code §§ 250–259 (§ 252 for life insurance) | A named beneficiary who “feloniously and intentionally kills” the insured. | A final conviction is conclusive. Without one, the court decides by a preponderance of the evidence, with the burden on the party seeking to bar the beneficiary (§ 254). | California Legislative Information · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 732.802(3) | A named beneficiary who “unlawfully and intentionally kills” the insured. | A final conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive. Without one, the court decides by the greater weight of the evidence. | Florida Senate · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Illinois | 755 ILCS 5/2-6 | A person who “intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another.” | A first or second degree murder conviction is conclusive. A civil court can decide without one, but cannot go to trial until the criminal case is decided at trial level or, if no charge is brought, a year after the death. | Illinois General Assembly · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.054 | A beneficiary who “willfully and unlawfully causes or participates with another in causing the death” of the insured. | A conviction or guilty plea after direct appeals, or a finding by a preponderance of the evidence; the trier of fact may mitigate the effect. | Missouri Revisor · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 43-8-253(c) | A named beneficiary who “feloniously and intentionally kills” the insured, or abuses the insured (defined by conviction of elder abuse or financial exploitation of an elderly person). | A final judgment of conviction is conclusive. The statute does not state a standard without one. Insurers are protected unless written notice arrives before payment. | Alabama Legislature · Oct 29, 2026 |
| New York | No general slayer statute; Riggs v. Palmer (court-made rule). EPTL § 4-1.6 covers joint bank accounts. | A beneficiary who intentionally or, courts have held, recklessly causes the insured’s death. A negligent killing does not automatically forfeit. | A conviction is conclusive. Without one, intentional or reckless conduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. | NY Law Reporting Bureau; EPTL 4-1.6, Justia (unofficial) · Oct 29, 2026 |
Simultaneous death
These rules decide who is treated as surviving when the insured and a beneficiary die together or close in time. A policy’s own survivorship clause can change the result. See Simultaneous death.
| State | Statute | Life insurance rule | Other survival rules | Source, checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | Tex. Est. Code § 121.153; ch. 121 | If the insured and the beneficiary die within 120 hours of each other, the insured is treated as having survived the beneficiary. | 120-hour survival rules also apply to heirs, devisees and contingent beneficiaries. The chapter yields to a will, trust, deed or insurance contract that provides otherwise. | Texas Statutes · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. 22:911 | If there is “not sufficient evidence that they have died otherwise than simultaneously,” proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary, unless the policy expressly provides otherwise. | Not yet reviewed for successions. | La. Legislature · Oct 29, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Prob. Code § 224 | Unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the beneficiary survived the insured, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. A special rule applies to community or quasi-community policies with no alternative beneficiary other than the estate. | Intestate heirs must survive by 120 hours, proved by clear and convincing evidence (§ 6403). | § 224; § 6403 · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 732.601(4) | If there is insufficient evidence they died otherwise than simultaneously, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. | No 120-hour period in this section. Yields to a contrary intention in the governing instrument. | Florida Senate · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Illinois | 755 ILCS 5/3-1(d) | If there is no sufficient evidence they died otherwise than simultaneously, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. | Yields to a different provision in the will, trust, deed, contract of insurance or other governing instrument. | Illinois General Assembly · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 471.040 | If there is no sufficient evidence they died otherwise than simultaneously, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. | Does not apply where a contract of insurance or other instrument provides otherwise (§ 471.060). | § 471.040; § 471.060 · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 43-7-5 | If there is no sufficient evidence they died otherwise than simultaneously, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. | Does not apply where the insurance contract provides otherwise (§ 43-7-7). | Alabama Legislature · Oct 29, 2026 |
| New York | N.Y. EPTL § 2-1.6 | A beneficiary not shown by clear and convincing evidence to have survived by 120 hours is treated as having died first; insurance policies are governing instruments. | Does not apply where the policy deals explicitly with simultaneous deaths or a common disaster, or sets its own survival period. Co-owners with survivorship rights split equally. | Justia (unofficial) · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 524.2-702 | If there is no sufficient evidence the deaths were not simultaneous, proceeds are distributed as if the insured survived the beneficiary. | 120-hour survival for certain other transfers. | Minnesota Revisor · Oct 29, 2026 |
Community property
In a community property state, a spouse may have an ownership claim to part of a benefit bought with marital earnings, even if someone else is the named beneficiary. The IRS lists nine community property states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.1 Federal law can override these claims: in Wissner v. Wissner, the Supreme Court held that a California community-property claim could not defeat the beneficiary named under federal military life insurance.2
| State | Statute | Basic rule | Source, checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | Tex. Fam. Code §§ 3.001–3.003 | Property acquired by either spouse during marriage, other than separate property, is community property. Property possessed during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed community; separate property must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. | Texas Statutes · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. Civ. Code art. 2338 | Property acquired during the legal regime through the effort, skill or industry of either spouse, and all other property not classified by law as separate, is community property. | Justia (unofficial) · Oct 29, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Fam. Code § 760 | Except as otherwise provided by statute, property acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in California is community property. | California Legislative Information · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Other states | IRS Pub. 555 | Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington and Wisconsin are also community property states. Their rules for life insurance have not yet been reviewed here. | IRS Publication 555 · Oct 29, 2026 |
Prompt payment and interest
These rules affect how much a claimant receives and how quickly an insurer must act. When the money is deposited in court, interest after deposit is a separate question; see discharge, fees, and interest.
| State | Statute | Deadline or interest rule | Source, checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | Tex. Ins. Code § 1103.104; §§ 542.055–.060 | Interest on life proceeds runs from receipt of due proof of loss. Under the prompt-payment chapter, a life insurer that receives notice of an “adverse, bona fide claim” must pay or “properly file an interpleader action and tender the benefits” within 90 days after receiving the items it requested; otherwise it owes 18% a year as damages plus reasonable attorney’s fees until it pays or interpleads. | ch. 542; ch. 1103 · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. 22:1811; 22:908 | Death claims must be settled within 60 days after receipt of due proof of death; failure “without just cause” carries 8% a year from receipt of proof until paid (§ 22:1811). Separately, interest begins 20 days after receipt of due proof of death at the rate paid on deposits with the insurer (§ 22:908), with exceptions for accidental death and dismemberment claims and certain home-service insurers. | § 22:1811; § 22:908 · Oct 29, 2026 |
| California | Cal. Ins. Code § 10172.5 | If proceeds are not paid within 30 days after the insured’s death, interest runs from the date of death at a rate no lower than the insurer’s rate on proceeds left on deposit. | California Legislative Information · Oct 29, 2026 |
| New York | N.Y. Ins. Law § 3214 | Interest from the date of death. The statute does not require this interest for any period during which interest is owed under a law pertaining to interpleader. | NY Senate · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 627.4615 | Lump-sum death proceeds carry interest from the date the insurer receives written due proof of death, at a rate at least equal to Moody’s Corporate Bond Yield Average (monthly average corporate) on the day the claim was received; at least 8% if that index’s method is substantially changed. | Florida Senate · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Illinois | 215 ILCS 5/224(1)(l) | 10% a year from the date of death unless paid within 31 days of the latest of: receipt of due proof of death; enough information to determine liability and the payee legally entitled; or resolution of legal impediments that depend on others. | Illinois General Assembly · Oct 29, 2026 |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 375.420, 375.296; 408.020 | No life-insurance-specific death-claim interest statute was found (not confirmed that none exists). For a refusal to pay “without reasonable cause or excuse,” a court or jury may add up to 20% of the first $1,500 and 10% of the rest, plus attorney’s fees. General legal interest is 9% when no rate is agreed. | § 375.420; § 375.296; § 408.020 · Oct 29, 2026 |
Interpleader procedure in state court
States have their own interpleader procedures. Texas uses Rule 43 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, California uses Code of Civil Procedure § 386, and Louisiana uses a “concursus” proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure article 4651 and following. Florida uses Rule 1.240 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Illinois uses 735 ILCS 5/2-409, and Missouri has both Supreme Court Rule 52.07 and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.060. Alabama uses Rule 22 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, and New York uses CPLR 1006. See Interpleader in state court and the state guides above.
Footnotes
-
Internal Revenue Service, Publication 555, Community Property (rev. Dec. 2024). IRS. ↩
-
Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655 (1950). See Key decisions. ↩