Florida: Beneficiary Disputes and Interpleader Under Florida Law

When Florida law decides the dispute

Florida law usually governs an individual policy or account owned by a Florida resident. Federal law controls ERISA employer plans and federal programs, and Florida’s divorce statute itself gives way “to the extent that controlling federal law provides otherwise.”¹ See federal programs.

Divorce and ex-spouse beneficiaries

Section 732.703 provides that a designation “to or for the benefit of the decedent’s former spouse is void as of the time the decedent’s marriage was judicially dissolved or declared invalid by court order prior to the decedent’s death, if the designation was made prior to the dissolution or court order.” The asset then passes as if the former spouse died first.¹

What it covers. The statute applies to assets of a Florida resident at death, including life insurance policies and annuities (inside or outside an employee benefit plan), employee benefit plans, IRAs, payable-on-death accounts and transfer-on-death securities accounts.¹

Main exceptions. It does not apply, among other cases:

• to the extent controlling federal law provides otherwise;
• if the decedent signed a new governing instrument after the divorce that expressly makes benefits payable to the former spouse;
• if the divorce order requires the decedent to keep the asset for the former spouse or children of the marriage, but only if no other assets meet that requirement;
• if, under the divorce order, the decedent could not have changed the asset alone, or the designation is irrevocable under applicable law;
• if the governing instrument is governed by another state’s law;
• to jointly owned assets that pass to a surviving co-owner;
• if the decedent remarried the former spouse and they were married at death; and
• to state-administered retirement plans under chapter 121.¹

Payors. The statute protects an insurer or other payor that pays according to its rules, even if it knows the payee is not the person who owns the money under the statute, but it does not settle ownership between the former spouse and the other claimants.¹ The section applies to decedents dying on or after July 1, 2012, regardless of when the designation was made. See Divorce.

Children as contingent beneficiaries. In two Northern District of Florida cases, insurers denied a former wife’s claim because of the divorce, and the insured’s minor children, the contingent beneficiaries, pursued the benefits through a next friend. The cases settled with court approval.²

Settlements for minors. A settlement on behalf of a minor is not effective “unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the action.”³ Florida also requires a guardian ad litem before a court approves a settlement of $50,000 or more,⁴ but federal courts in the Eleventh Circuit treat the appointment as a procedural question under Rule 17. In American General Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson (N.D. Fla. 2023), the court approved a settlement without a guardian ad litem because the children’s father had the same interests as the children,⁵ and in the next-friend cases the court found a disinterested next friend sufficient.² See minor beneficiaries.

Changing a beneficiary: strict compliance

Florida courts require an insured to strictly comply with the policy’s terms to change a beneficiary. In American General v. Maharajh, the federal courts applying Florida law held that a change request the insurer had reasonably rejected, and that the insured never fixed in the ten years before he died, did not change the beneficiary. The courts read the policy’s “subject to any payment we make or other action we take before recording” language as permitting objectively reasonable action by the insurer.⁶ See change of beneficiary.

Slayer rule

“A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement who unlawfully and intentionally kills the principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other contractual arrangement; and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.”⁷

A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive. Without one, “the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional.” An insurer that pays under its policy is not liable under the section unless, before payment, it received written notice of a claim under the section at its home office or principal address.⁷ See the slayer rule guide.

Simultaneous death

Florida’s Simultaneous Death Law applies unless a contrary intention appears in the governing instrument:

• Life insurance. When the insured and the beneficiary have died “and there is insufficient evidence that they died otherwise than simultaneously, the proceeds of the policy shall be distributed as if the insured had survived the beneficiary.”
• General rule. When devolution depends on priority of death and the evidence is insufficient, each person’s property is disposed of as if that person survived.
• Joint tenants. Property is split one-half as if each had survived.⁸

Unlike Texas and California, this section does not set a 120-hour survival period. See simultaneous death.

Payment and interest

When a policy pays its proceeds in a lump sum on the insured’s death, “the payment must include interest” from the date the insurer receives written due proof of death, at an annual rate at least equal to Moody’s Corporate Bond Yield Average (monthly average corporate) as of the day the claim was received. If that index’s method of calculation is substantially changed from the method in use on January 1, 1993, the rate must be at least 8 percent.⁹

Separately, life insurance payable to a named beneficiary goes to that beneficiary and is exempt from the insured’s creditors unless the policy or an assignment provides otherwise; insurance payable to the insured or the insured’s estate becomes part of the estate. Payment as the statute directs discharges the insurer.¹⁰ See discharge, fees, and interest.

A creditor of the insured may still make a claim. In Augustar Life v. Sanchez (S.D. Fla. 2025), the insured’s family members claimed the benefits of two whole life policies, and a company that held a state-court judgment against the insured also claimed them. The insurer deposited the benefits, did not seek fees, and was discharged without objection from any claimant. The court ordered the claimants to “settle or litigate between themselves their claims and rights to the Proceeds,” so the discharge order did not decide whether the judgment creditor could reach the benefits.¹¹

Interpleader in Florida courts

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240 lets a person facing claims that may expose it “to double or multiple liability” join the claimants as defendants and require them to interplead. The claims need not have a common origin, and a defendant exposed to similar liability may interplead by crossclaim or counterclaim.¹² See interpleader in state court.

Decisions

Related guides

• State law differences
• Change of beneficiary
• Divorce and beneficiary designations
• Slayer rule
• Glossary

Footnotes

1. Fla. Stat. § 732.703(2)–(9). Florida Senate. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. Minor children’s suit against Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 3:23-cv-24636-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.) (captioned by the children’s initials): order granting deposit, discharge and dismissal of the insurer, ECF No. 15 (Mar. 5, 2024); order staying the case, ECF No. 17 (Mar. 14, 2024); order, ECF No. 21 (Apr. 11, 2024); order approving settlement, ECF No. 23 (May 1, 2024), at 1–9, court order (PDF); judgment, ECF No. 24 (May 1, 2024), court judgment (PDF). Minor children’s suit against USAA Life Ins. Co., No. 3:24-cv-00577-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.): clerk’s default, ECF No. 15 (Mar. 31, 2025); order approving settlement, ECF No. 19 (Dec. 22, 2025), court order (PDF). ↩ ↩²

3. Fla. Stat. § 744.387(3)(a). Florida Legislature. ↩

4. Fla. Stat. § 744.3025(1)(b), (e). Florida Legislature. ↩

5. American General Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson, No. 1:22-cv-00213-MW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.): order granting intervention, ECF No. 11 (Oct. 25, 2022); order granting default judgment, ECF No. 27 (Mar. 3, 2023), at 6–8, court order (PDF); order approving settlement and entering final judgment, ECF No. 31 (Mar. 6, 2023), at 1–3, court order (PDF); judgment, ECF No. 32 (Mar. 6, 2023), court judgment (PDF). ↩

6. American General Life Ins. Co. v. Maharajh, No. 22-10220 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2023) (unpublished), ECF No. 52-1, court copy (PDF) (also on GovInfo and the Eleventh Circuit site (PDF)), aff’g No. 8:20-cv-1581-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2021) (district court caption uses the minor’s initials), order granting summary judgment, ECF No. 62, court order (PDF) (also on the M.D. Fla. site (PDF)); judgment, ECF No. 63 (Dec. 17, 2021), court judgment (PDF); order of interpleader disbursement and discharge, ECF No. 79 (Sept. 28, 2023). ↩

7. Fla. Stat. § 732.802(3), (5), (6). Florida Senate. ↩ ↩²

8. Fla. Stat. § 732.601. Florida Senate. ↩

9. Fla. Stat. § 627.4615. Florida Senate. ↩

10. Fla. Stat. § 222.13. Florida Senate. ↩

11. Augustar Life Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, No. 0:25-cv-61436 (S.D. Fla.), order granting unopposed motion for order of discharge in interpleader, ECF No. 32 (Dec. 1, 2025), at 1–2, 4, court order (PDF). ↩

12. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.240. The Florida Bar’s official rules PDF could not be opened for this check; the text was read on unofficial copies, such as Court Rules Network. Confirm the current text with the Florida Bar. ↩