## Facts

- Dr. Henry K. Sagel died testate on September 20, 1998, when his personal airplane crashed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
- Sagel owned the aircraft (a Piper Aerostar 600) and the Rolex watch he was wearing during the flight.
- The crash caused Sagel’s death and destroyed both the aircraft and the watch.
- Sagel’s will gave his son, Gregory K. Sagel, a specific bequest of all tangible personal property Sagel owned at death.
- The will left the residue of the estate to beneficiaries other than Gregory.
- The estate later received insurance proceeds attributable to the destroyed airplane and watch.
- Gregory claimed the insurance proceeds followed the specific bequest of tangible personal property.
- The estate argued the airplane and watch were adeemed by extinction because they were destroyed in the crash, so the related insurance proceeds should pass under the residuary clause.
- The Orphans’ Court ruled for Gregory, concluding the items were tangible personal property that did not adeem and that the insurance proceeds passed through the specific bequest.
- The estate appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether a specific bequest of “tangible personal property” is adeemed by extinction when the property is destroyed in the same crash that causes the testator’s death.
2. Whether, under Pennsylvania law (including 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2514(18)), insurance proceeds for specifically bequeathed property destroyed at the time of death pass to the specific legatee or to the residuary beneficiaries.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Orphans’ Court’s order.
- The court held the airplane and Rolex were “tangible personal property” covered by the will’s specific bequest to Gregory.
- The court held the specific bequest was not adeemed because Sagel still owned the items at the time of death, even though they were destroyed in the fatal event.
- The court held the insurance proceeds attributable to the plane and watch passed to Gregory through the specific bequest, rather than under the residuary clause.

## Legal Principles

- A specific gift is adeemed by extinction only if the specifically devised or bequeathed property is not part of the testator’s estate at death due to events occurring before death that remove the property from the estate.
- For ademption purposes, the relevant focus is whether the testator owned the specifically gifted property at the time of death; destruction occurring in the same event as death does not necessarily mean the property was not owned at death.
- Under Pennsylvania’s statutory rules of construction for wills, including 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2514(18), when specifically gifted property is insured and a right to insurance proceeds exists at death, those proceeds follow the specific gift rather than falling into the residue.
- When a will makes a specific bequest of tangible personal property and the insured item is destroyed at the time of death, the insurance recovery may be treated as a substitute for the gifted item for distribution purposes.

## Conclusion

Because Henry Sagel still owned the insured airplane and Rolex watch at the time of his death, the specific bequest of tangible personal property did not adeem, and—consistent with Pennsylvania law and 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 2514(18)—the insurance proceeds for the destroyed items were payable to Gregory Sagel under the specific bequest rather than to the residuary beneficiaries.


In re Estate of Sagel, 901 A.2d 538 (2006)