Estate of Logan v. Logan
236 Cal. Rptr. 368, 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1606, 191 Cal. App. 3d 319 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A term life insurance policy is not a divisible community property asset upon dissolution of marriage if the insured spouse remains insurable. An exception arises if the insured becomes uninsurable during a term paid for with community funds, in which case the right to renew the policy is a divisible community asset.
Facts:
- Jeanne Logan and William Logan married in 1947 and separated in 1966.
- During the marriage, William's employer, American Airlines, deducted premiums from his salary to pay for a group term life insurance policy.
- The couple's 1968 divorce judgment required William to maintain their children as beneficiaries until they reached the age of majority.
- William died in 1984, at which point the children from his marriage to Jeanne were adults.
- After the separation, William continued to pay the policy premiums with his separate property earnings.
- At the time William began paying premiums with his separate property, he remained insurable.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanne Logan and William Logan's marriage was dissolved by an interlocutory judgment of divorce in 1968.
- Following William Logan's death in 1984, Jeanne Logan brought an action in the trial court seeking a portion of his term life insurance proceeds.
- The trial court found that Jeanne had no community property interest in the insurance proceeds and denied her request.
- Jeanne Logan appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a term life insurance policy purchased with community funds a divisible community property asset upon dissolution of marriage if the insured spouse remains insurable?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
No. A term life insurance policy is not a divisible community asset upon divorce when the insured spouse is still insurable. The court reasoned that term life insurance has two elements: the dollar coverage for the specified term and the right to renew. Once the term paid for with community funds expires without the insured's death, the community has received the full benefit of its bargain (the protection for that term), and the policy retains no cash value. The right to renew the policy for future terms only has value if the insured has become uninsurable; if the insured remains insurable, they could obtain a comparable policy on the open market, rendering the renewal right of the existing policy valueless. The court explicitly rejected the reasoning of In re Marriage of Gonzalez, which had found such policies to be community assets, criticizing that decision for making unsupported assumptions about the value and replaceability of term policies.
Concurring - Haning, J.
The author concurred in the result but expressed no opinion on the majority's exception for cases where the insured becomes uninsurable. The concurring opinion stated that this issue was not before the court, had not been fully briefed, and was not ripe for decision under the present circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a significant conflict among California appellate courts regarding the community property character of term life insurance, siding with In re Marriage of Lorenz over In re Marriage of Gonzalez. By establishing that term life insurance policies generally have no community value at divorce, the court simplified property division and reduced potential litigation costs associated with expert valuations. However, the ruling created a new potential area for litigation by carving out an exception for when an insured spouse becomes uninsurable, shifting the factual inquiry in such cases from valuation to the medical status of the insured spouse.
