Contents

§ 17.4 INSURABLE INTERESTThe court found that the ex-wife had an insurable interest in the life of theex-husband, based on the state’s statutory law. The court also decided that,divorce notwithstanding, a former wife who is entitled to alimony has an insurableinterest in her former husband’s life. The court recognized that the “primarypurpose of the prohibition [on life insurance absent insurable interest] is toprevent wagering on the life of another, ... although, as other authorities recognize,... the prevention of murder is another rationale.” 33 It quoted another courtas writing that the rule as to insurable interest stems from the need “to avoidextending to the beneficiary the temptation to hasten by improper means thetime when he [or she] will receive the benefits of the policy.” 34 (The court notedthe “rancorous history” between the parties, which was cited by the ex-husbandas the basis for his position. 35 ) The court also found, however, that this ex-wifewould have, should she become the beneficiary of the policy, an interest in theex-husband’s death. Instead of finding that that interest obviated any insurableinterest, the court recognized a “conflict of interest.” That is, the ex-wife washeld to have both an interest in the insured’s continued life (the insurable interest)and an interest in his death. The court wryly observed, quoting from anothercourt opinion, that “this conflict might be a fruitful source of crime.” 36 This conflictof interest was held to be resolvable by the consent of the would-be insured.The putative insured was said to be able to “evaluate the risk to his own interest”in deciding whether to become an insured. 37 Thus, the case turned on a statestatute requiring consent by an insured to the insurance coverage even when thepotential beneficiary has an insurable interest in the life of the insured. In thecase, the court said that the former husband “emphatically does not consent” tothis insurance and that he cannot be compelled to consent; 38 the ex-wife thuswas unable to obtain the insurance coverage.This opinion has a substantial bearing on the matter of insurable interest inthe setting of charitable giving. As noted, in the instance of an individual who isa valued volunteer and a major annual contributor to a charitable organization,it would seem that the organization has an insurable interest in this individual’slife, at least in connection with the gift of a life insurance policy by him or her.Certainly, the charity has an economic interest in the ongoing life of the individual.Being the beneficiary of an insurance policy is not likely to cause someonerepresenting the charity to succumb to the “temptation to hasten by impropermeans the time when ... [the charity] will receive the benefits of the policy.”There is nearly always an interest for a charitable organization in the deathof an individual, particularly when that individual is the insured on a life insurancepolicy of which the charity is the owner and beneficiary. But one of theimportant aspects of this opinion is that the court did not find that the interest inthe beneficiary’s death undercut or eliminated the insurable interest; rather, itfound that the interest in death conflicted with the insurable interest. Thus, this33 Id. at 98.34 Id. at 100.35 Id. at 98.36 Id. at 100.37 Id.38 Id. 537