Legal Opinion

Principal Life Insurance v. Peterson

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 2007No. F049876PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ARDAIZ, P. J.

Probate Code section 252 provides that when the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy “feloniously and intentionally kills” the person whose life is insured, the beneficiary “is not entitled to any benefit under the . . . policy . . . , and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.” (Ibid.) Appellant is the named beneficiary of a $250,000 life insurance policy insuring the life of his late wife, Laci Peterson. On November 12, 2004, a jury found appellant guilty of the first degree murder of Laci Peterson, and on March 16, 2005, the San…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Wolf v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Agarwal v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. White v. Ultramar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Holder v. AuguStar Life Assurance CorporationUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2025
  4. MacPherson-Pomeroy v. North American Company for Life and Health InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  5. Munger v. Intel CorporationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API