Washington State Public Employees' Board v. Cook

(dissenting) — In interpreting the phrase "insurable interest," which is not defined in RCW 41.40-.270, we must first look to the. context in which that phrase has been defined.

In its eagerness to rely upon a fixed rule, the majority has overlooked the purpose behind the rule. The rule requiring an insurable interest has no magic in itself. It exists for a specific reason — to assure that the beneficiary has an interest in protecting and prolonging the life of the insured. This purpose, stated inversely, is to prevent wagering: to disallow speculation ” 'upon the hazard of a life in which the…