State law
Hawaii: Beneficiary Disputes and Interpleader Under Hawaii Law
Hawaii's uniform-code statutes revoke designations not only on divorce but also when a reciprocal beneficiary relationship ends, and the District of Hawaii has treated a manslaughter plea as an intentional killing for slayer purposes.
On this page
Two relationships, not one
Hawaii follows the Uniform Probate Code’s revocation-on-divorce section, with one addition. HRS § 560:2-804 applies when a marriage ends in divorce or annulment and also when a reciprocal beneficiary relationship under chapter 572C is terminated.1 A designation of the former spouse or former reciprocal beneficiary in a life insurance policy or other governing instrument is revoked unless the instrument, a court order, or a contract relating to the division of property provides otherwise.1
Subsection (g) protects a payor that pays under the policy before it receives written notice of the divorce or termination.1 The rule is a strong reason for a contingent beneficiary to send written notice to the insurer as soon as a claim is in doubt. See how a claim freezes payment.
A state revocation statute does not control an ERISA plan or a federal program such as FEGLI or SGLI. See federal programs and divorce and beneficiary designations.
The slayer statute and the manslaughter question
HRS § 560:2-803 disqualifies a person who “feloniously and intentionally kills” the decedent.2 Under subsection (g), after all appeals are exhausted a judgment of conviction conclusively establishes the convicted person as the killer; absent a conviction, the court determines on petition whether the killing would be felonious and intentional by a preponderance of the evidence.2 Subsection (h) contains payor protection similar to § 2-804.
The difficult cases are pleas to lesser offenses. In Adviento, the husband’s murder conviction was vacated on appeal and he later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The policy named no beneficiary, so the spouse would have been first in line. The District Court held: “A conviction for manslaughter pursuant to Hawaii law is a felonious and intentional killing for purposes of the Hawaii slayer statute.”3 The proceeds went in equal shares to the insured’s children.
That conclusion depends on how Hawaii defines manslaughter. Other states reach different results for unintentional killings; compare Maine, where a federal court held an unintentional-killing conviction did not by itself bar the beneficiary.
Decisions
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Adviento (D. Haw. 2018)
- Facts
- Accidental-death coverage with no designated beneficiary. The spouse, first in line under the policy, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after an earlier murder conviction was vacated.
- Holding
- The spouse was barred under § 560:2-803 (slip op. at 20); the children took equal shares.
- Why it matters
- A plea to a lesser offense can still trigger the slayer bar in Hawaii.
Opinion: GovInfo.
New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp. v. Esfandiari (D. Haw. 2010)
- Facts
- After a series of change and ownership-transfer forms, a new first beneficiary claimed the proceeds. A prior beneficiary alleged that ownership had been fraudulently transferred.
- Holding
- The insurer, a disinterested stakeholder, was discharged and found entitled to fees and costs, with the amount referred to the magistrate judge. The court set out when "discharge of a disinterested stakeholder is permissible" (slip op. at 7).
- Why it matters
- When fraud is alleged among claimants rather than against the insurer, discharge is usually straightforward.
Opinion: GovInfo.
Related guides
- State law differences
- Slayer rule
- Divorce and beneficiary designations
- Discharge, fees, and interest
Footnotes
-
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:2-804. Hawaii State Legislature. ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:2-803(g), (h). Hawaii State Legislature. ↩ ↩2
-
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Adviento, Civ. No. 16-00565 HG-RLP, slip op. at 20 (D. Haw. July 10, 2018). GovInfo. ↩