State law
Mississippi: Slayer Claims and Minor Beneficiaries Under Mississippi Law
Mississippi's slayer statute bars a beneficiary who willfully causes or procures the insured's death, but a civil claimant must bring evidence, not suspicion.
Slayer rule
Mississippi’s statute bars one who “wilfully cause[s] or procure[s] the death of another” from taking through the person killed.1 In a federal diversity case, the court applied Mississippi law: the Supreme Court of Mississippi “has held that a beneficiary who has willfully taken the life of an insured cannot recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy.”2 A claimant who invokes the statute in a civil case has to prove the facts by a preponderance of the evidence, and has to do it with evidence.
In Garden State Life v. Estate of Raine (S.D. Miss. 2018), the insured was killed in his home in 2011. The death was ruled a homicide, and no one had been arrested in the nearly seven years before the ruling. His estate claimed the named beneficiary, his wife, had caused his death. It relied on a relative’s affidavit and on the circumstances of a later death. The court found that the affidavit offered no personal knowledge tying her to the death, and it wrote: “While it may be suspiciously coincidental that Emma Raine’s second husband was shot and killed, that she was convicted for her role in that murder, and that she collected life insurance money, without more, the Estate has nothing more than mere speculation at this point.” It granted summary judgment for the named beneficiary.2 It later denied reconsideration, and after a separate cross-claim by the United States against her share was resolved by agreement, it entered a final judgment and order of disbursement.3 See the slayer rule and the full summary.
Shares for minor children
Money for a child usually cannot simply be paid to the child. In State Farm Life v. Luna (S.D. Miss.), the insurer had already paid most of the benefit to one adult claimant, and claims to the rest were made on behalf of three minor children. The insurer interpleaded and deposited the remainder. The parties agreed that each child would receive an equal share. The agreed judgment paid one child’s share to his guardian and directed that the other two children’s shares be held for them and paid to a conservator appointed for them. It then discharged the insurer, enjoined further claims against it and dismissed the case with prejudice.4 See minor beneficiaries.
Decisions
Garden State Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Raine (S.D. Miss. 2018)
- Holding
- Speculation is not enough to disqualify a named beneficiary under § 91-1-25; summary judgment for the beneficiary.
Court copies: memorandum opinion, ECF No. 56 (PDF); order denying reconsideration, ECF No. 61; final judgment, ECF No. 63 (PDF).
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Luna (S.D. Miss. 2020)
- Outcome
- Equal shares for three minor children, one through a guardian and two through a conservator; insurer discharged.
Court copy: agreed judgment of dismissal with prejudice, ECF No. 42 (PDF).
Related guides
Footnotes
-
Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-25. Current (2025) text read on Justia (unofficial); the same words are quoted in In re Estate of Miller, 840 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 2003). Mississippi’s official online code is hosted by a commercial publisher and could not be read for this check. ↩
-
Garden State Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Raine, No. 2:17-cv-103-KS-JCG (S.D. Miss.), memorandum opinion and order, ECF No. 56 (Sept. 25, 2018), court order (PDF) (citing Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 797 So. 2d 858, 864). ↩ ↩2
-
Raine, order denying reconsideration, ECF No. 61 (Oct. 16, 2018); final judgment and order of interpleader disbursement, ECF No. 63 (Oct. 18, 2018), court judgment (PDF). ↩
-
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Luna, No. 3:19-cv-00638-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.), agreed judgment of dismissal with prejudice, ECF No. 42 (Sept. 21, 2020), court order (PDF). ↩