Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mollett v. United Benefit Life Insurance

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 1, 1971No. 303-2Published

1DissentPetrie, C.J.

(dissenting)—I am compelled to dissent. It is a fundamental tenet of insurance contract law that one who has been irrevocably designated a beneficiary of a life insurance policy acquires a vested interest in the proceeds thereof, which can neither be impaired nor extinguished by the insured, nor by the insurer, nor by the two acting together. 4 R. Anderson, Couch on Insurance 2d § 27:56 (1960); 2 J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 911 (1966). Through the years, no decision in this jurisdiction has in the slightest degree altered this basic tenet. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Toulouse v. New York Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Bank of CaliforniaWashington Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California v. GannonWashington Supreme Court · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API