Life insurance beneficiary designation-opposite of Egelhoff

[Guest Susanne]

A single employee fills out life ins. beneficiary form naming parents. Later he marries, but never changes the beneficiary to his wife. The form he signed contained the clause:

"If I am married at the time of my death, my spouse will be the sole beneficiary unless spouse signs the waiver below."

Since no new form was filled out, the spouse obviously never signed the waiver. After the employees death, the ins. co. paid the employee's parents, even though they were informed he was married. The other plans (401(k) and pension) were paid 100% to surviving spouse, by the company.

Egelhoff gets mentioned a lot lately, but this doesn't seem to apply. Nothing in the SCOTUS ruling overturned section 1055 of ERISA (joint survivor annuity) so shouldn't this be a no brainer?

[AndyH]

Wouldn't the terms of the plan document govern who receives death benefits, not some form? I'd check out what the document says in this regard.

If it's a DB plan subject to REA, then, yes, the spouse would likely be the proper beneficiary under the situation you've described. But, again, the plan would state that.

[Guest Keith N]

Based on my experience the Plan defines the death benefit (i.e.: 100 X pensions) and then insures itself to cover it. At any point, due to changes in the projected benefit, the Plan may be under or over insured. The Plan pays the death benefit from the Trust and then the proceeds of the policy are used to re-imburse the Trust for all or a portion of the benefits paid to the beneficiary. Generally there is no direct payment from the Ins. Co. to the beneficiary. The payment would go from the Ins. Co. to the Trust and the Trust to the beneficiary.

The Plan defines the death benefit. The death benefit must at least be be equal to the value of the REA QJSA. If the Plan did not pay the spouse a benefit at least equal to the value of the REA OJSA, I think you have a significant problem. It also sounds like you have some design issues if the Ins. Co. paid the beneficiary directly.

And again as AndyH said, your Plan document governs who receives the death benefit and what the death benefit is.

I'm assuming that this is a defined benefit plan and that the part & spouse were married at least 1 year.

[AndyH]

Yes, those are important clarifications, that:

1. Only a portion of the death benefit must go to the spouse. It is possible that such a form may constitute a proper designation of death benefits above the required REA death benefits. But that mechanism would be defined in the plan document.

2. Yes, the 1 year marriage requirement (if the plan document so provides) is an important clarification.