Employee murdered by spouse - Spousal benefits

[Guest Julie]

One of our vested terminated employees was recently murdered by her husband. I assume the husband will still be eligible to receive her vested benefit under the pre-retirement spouse's death benefit program, however, I'd like to make certain of this. It just doesn't seem right that he would be eligible to receive the benefits. Is there any case law out there?

[david rigby]

These discussions might be relevant.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2931

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21324

The plan should be getting advice from its ERISA counsel.

[mbozek]

There is case law denying retirement benefits to a benficiary who murders the participant under the common law theory that a wrong doer cannot profit from his or her wrong. However it is not up to the plan to deny the bene's claim. The plan must wait for a claim for the benefits from the estate or the children of the participant demanding that benefits be denied to the bene in which case the plan would file a complaint in interpleader in fed ct which will decide the case. You need to consult with counsel.

[doombuggy]

I agree with the previous poster. I had a similar case with a 401(k) plan I was administrating a few years ago where the death was suspious and the wife was a suspect. She claimed the benes and so did the dec'd's father (on behalf of his grandchildren). We advised the clien tot freeze the account (no pay out to either party) and to get a lawyer to check it out.

Good luck to you.

[Kirk Maldonado]

mbozek:

Are you sure that it was based upon common law. I thought that those cases involved "killer statutes" preventing the murder from benefiting from his or her crime. But that was about 10 or 15 years ago, so my memory is pretty hazy.

[mbozek]

See Mendez-Bellido v. Board of Trustees, 709 F supp 329, citing Riggs v. Palmer, an 1889 NY case.

[Kirk Maldonado]

mbozek:

The case I was remembering (as involving a statute) was George Pfau's Sons Company, Inc. v. Neal, 665 N.E.2d 68; 1996 Ind. App. Lexis 671.

[KJohnson]

From yesterday's Plansponsor.com's "News Dash". I think you might have to register to look at the link:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts Ohio's slayer statute, and thus federal law must be applied to determine the proper beneficiary of a life insurance policyholder who was murdered by her husband, according to a recent ruling by the Ohio Court of Appeals. Judge Mary DeGenaro said the slayer statute, which states that the property of a murder victim is distributed as if the person who caused the victim's death predeceased the victim, interfered with nationally uniform plan administration, which is one of ERISA's goals, and thus was similar to the statute in Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, which the US Supreme Court found was preempted by ERISA. MORE.

http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=27029

[mbozek]

The common law principle that a wrongdoer cannot profit from his wrong as established under case law in Riggs v. Palmer has been enacted by statute in many states. NY does not have a statute and thus relies on the holding in Riggs.

I question whether the Ohio state ct is the proper forum for resolving a dispute over benefits which in NY and LA were decided by fed cts applying federal common law principles after reviewing st law. It seems that all the OH ct has done is return the case to the plan admin for a determination of benefits under the plan which will then be appealed by the loser in fed ct as a denial of benefits.

[GBurns]

Why would the absence of a statute (Slayer or otherwise) in NY be relevant to the question posed?

If the "event" falls under 1 of the 42 states with "Slayer Statutes", it does not matter what NY has, it matters what applies in that particular state. It also matters if, as in the Ohio case, case law allows preemption by ERISA.

Julie,

Although I know that your parent company is in Ohio, I still have to ask, Do you know what state would govern?

[Harwood]

Check out PLR 9008079