## Facts

- The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued a life-insurance policy on the life of Elmer Filmore’s wife and named Elmer Filmore as beneficiary.
- After the insured died, Filmore filed suit to recover the policy proceeds.
- The insurer answered with a general denial and alleged that Filmore “murdered” his wife.
- The insurer further alleged Filmore had been indicted, convicted, and sentenced for manslaughter in connection with the insured’s death.
- The insurer asserted that, because Filmore caused the insured’s death, public policy barred him from collecting the proceeds.
- Filmore demurred to the insurer’s answer, arguing the defense was legally insufficient because it did not adequately allege the killing was intentional.

## Issues

1. Whether a beneficiary may recover life-insurance proceeds when the beneficiary caused the insured’s death through an intentional and felonious act.
2. Whether an insurer states a sufficient defense by alleging that the beneficiary “murdered” the insured, without separately pleading intent, when tested by demurrer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed judgment for the insurer.
- The court held a beneficiary cannot recover if the insured’s death was caused by the beneficiary’s intentional and felonious act.
- The court held that alleging the beneficiary “murdered” the insured is, in legal effect, an allegation of an intentional and felonious killing and therefore states a defense.
- Because the answer stated a valid defense, the demurrer was properly overruled and dismissal of Filmore’s action was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- A beneficiary is disqualified from receiving life-insurance proceeds when the beneficiary intentionally and feloniously causes the insured’s death; contract rights yield to public policy against profiting from one’s own wrongful killing.
- The public-policy bar is limited to intentional and felonious killings, not merely negligent or accidental conduct.
- In civil pleading, an averment that a plaintiff “murdered” the insured is tantamount to pleading that the killing was intentional and felonious and is sufficient to withstand a demurrer.

## Conclusion

The court applied a common-law “slayer” rule to life insurance, holding that a beneficiary who intentionally and feloniously kills the insured cannot collect policy proceeds, and it approved pleading “murder” as adequate to allege the intent and felony necessary to invoke that bar.


Filmore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 82 Ohio St. 208, 92 N.E. 26 (1910)