Missouri: Beneficiary Disputes and Interpleader Under Missouri Law

When Missouri law decides the dispute

Missouri law usually governs an individual policy owned by a Missouri resident. Federal law controls ERISA employer plans and federal programs. The Revisor’s annotation to § 461.051 notes that in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff the Supreme Court held a state statute automatically revoking a spouse’s designation on divorce preempted by ERISA.¹ See federal programs.

Divorce and ex-spouse beneficiaries

Missouri’s rule is in its Nonprobate Transfers Law. “If, after an owner makes a beneficiary designation, the owner’s marriage is dissolved or annulled, any provision of the beneficiary designation in favor of the owner’s former spouse or a relative of the owner’s former spouse is revoked on the date the marriage is dissolved or annulled.” The designation then takes effect as if the former spouse or relative had disclaimed it.¹

Exceptions. The revocation does not apply to a designation that is irrevocable or revocable only with the spouse’s consent, that is made after the divorce, or that expressly states that divorce does not affect it. A revoked designation is revived if the owner remarries the former spouse or the divorce is nullified.¹

Sources:²

See Divorce.

Changing a beneficiary: substantial compliance

Missouri courts apply the equitable doctrine of substantial compliance, but the bar is high. In Glass v. Transamerica, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, summarized the rule: the insured’s intent must be “established beyond question,” and the insured must have “done everything possible under the circumstances to effectuate” the change.³

The court also explained the effect of an interpleader. When an insurer interpleads and pays the money into court, it waives the policy’s requirements for changing a beneficiary, but “the waiver was for the benefit of” the insurer and “did not confer rights between” the claimants.³ See change of beneficiary.

Slayer rule

“A beneficiary who willfully and unlawfully causes or participates with another in causing the death of the owner, or the insured individual under a life insurance policy or certificate, is disqualified from receiving any benefit of a nonprobate transfer from the owner or any proceeds payable as a result of the death of an individual insured under a life insurance policy or certificate.” The designation takes effect as if the disqualified beneficiary had disclaimed it.⁴

The killing may be established by a criminal conviction or guilty plea after the right of direct appeal has been exhausted, or by a preponderance of the evidence on the petition of an interested person or the transferring entity. Any party may demand a jury, and the trier of fact “may mitigate the effect” of the section as justice requires. The same section voids a designation or revocation procured by fraud, duress or undue influence.⁴

A federal case stayed for the criminal case. In First Unum Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall (W.D. Mo. 2024), an ERISA-governed employer plan named the insured’s domestic partner as primary beneficiary. He was charged in the insured’s death, and the insured’s mother, as representative of the estate, also claimed the benefit. The insurer filed its interpleader about eight months after the death. In the court’s summary of the parties’ position, “the outcome of the criminal case will likely be determinative” of which claimant was entitled to the money; the court agreed, staying all discovery pending the criminal case and requiring status reports every 60 days. It also noted that a registry deposit is generally not required for jurisdiction in a Rule 22 interpleader. The named beneficiary was convicted at his criminal trial, including of second-degree murder of the insured; the insurer then notified the court that, because of the conviction, he was giving up his interest. The court lifted the stay, and about five months after filing the parties dismissed the case by stipulation. According to the parties’ stipulation, he signed a disclaimer as a result of the conviction, and the insurer was to pay the full benefit, plus all accumulated interest, for the estate. No court decided the slayer question or whether Missouri law or federal law governed the ERISA plan.⁵

See the slayer rule guide.

Simultaneous death

• Life insurance. “Where the insured and the beneficiary in a policy of life or accident insurance have died and there is no sufficient evidence that they have died otherwise than simultaneously the proceeds of the policy shall be distributed as if the insured had survived the beneficiary.”⁶
• General rule. When devolution depends on priority of death and there is no sufficient evidence otherwise, “as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,” each person’s property is disposed of as if that person survived.⁷
• Policy terms control. The chapter does not apply to contracts of insurance or other instruments that provide for a different distribution or a different survivorship presumption.⁸

See simultaneous death.

Payment and interest

The editors did not find a Missouri statute that sets interest specifically on life insurance death claims, and have not confirmed that none exists. Two general statutes are relevant:

• Legal interest. When no other rate is agreed, creditors may receive 9% a year on money due on written contracts after it becomes due and payable.⁹
• Vexatious refusal. In a suit on a life policy, if the insurer refused to pay “without reasonable cause or excuse,” the court or jury may add damages of up to 20% of the first $1,500 of the loss and 10% of the rest, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.¹⁰ A related section applies when the insurer has failed to pay for 30 days after demand.¹¹

See discharge, fees, and interest.

Interpleader in Missouri courts

Missouri has both a court rule and a statute. Rule 52.07 lets a plaintiff join claimants and require them to interplead when “the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability,” and lets a defendant interplead by cross-claim or counterclaim.¹² Section 507.060 contains a parallel provision, along with special rules for liability insurers facing claims that exceed their policy limits.¹³ See interpleader in state court.

A Missouri state-court interpleader can end up in federal court. In Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Townes, an insurer’s interpleader over a life policy was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 9, 2024; the court later described the claimants’ “decision to contest personal jurisdiction in state court and remove this matter to federal court.” The federal court set answer deadlines under the federal rules, allowed the deposit, ruled on the insurer’s fees (reducing them), and entered a final judgment on November 13, 2025 under which each of the insured’s two children received $66,755.49 plus half the interest and the stepdaughter received $10,000; the insurer’s fees and costs of $8,174.98 came out of the fund.¹⁴ See when a claimant sues first and attorney’s fees in interpleader.

Decisions

Related guides

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

Footnotes

1. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.051 and annotation. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.005(2), (7). Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

3. Glass v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. SD29793 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. June 4, 2010). Justia (unofficial). ↩ ↩²

4. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.054. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩ ↩²

5. First Unum Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, No. 4:23-cv-00901-DGK (W.D. Mo.): order re proposed scheduling order, ECF No. 16 (Feb. 29, 2024), at 1–2; text order lifting stay, ECF No. 19 (Apr. 30, 2024); insurer’s notice of settlement and motion to stay, ECF No. 20 (May 6, 2024), at 1; joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, ECF No. 22 (May 20, 2024), at 1–3 (all three cited by docket number). The case settled; no court ruled on the slayer statute or on whether state or federal law governed the plan. ↩

6. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 471.040. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

7. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 471.010. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

8. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 471.060. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

9. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

10. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

11. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.296. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

12. Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 52.07. An official copy could not be opened for this check; the text was read on Court Rules Network (unofficial). ↩

13. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.060. Missouri Revisor of Statutes. ↩

14. Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Townes, No. 4:24-cv-01099-RHH (E.D. Mo.), order, ECF No. 51 (June 25, 2025), at 2; memorandum and order, ECF No. 61 (Oct. 15, 2025), court order (PDF), at 7; final judgment and order for disbursement of funds, ECF No. 64 (Nov. 13, 2025), court judgment (PDF). ↩