## Facts

- Jerrold Mearns owned a renewable term life insurance policy issued in 1992 that named his then-wife, Christine, as primary beneficiary and his adult children, Joel and Nanette, as contingent beneficiaries.
- Washington enacted RCW 11.07.010 in 1993, providing that upon dissolution of marriage, beneficiary designations in favor of a former spouse are revoked and the former spouse is treated as having predeceased the owner, unless an exception applies or the owner redesignates the former spouse after dissolution.
- Jerrold and Christine divorced in 1997; the dissolution decree did not address the policy, and Jerrold did not execute a new written beneficiary designation after the divorce.
- After the divorce, Jerrold cancelled a different policy naming Christine as beneficiary and told others he did not want to change the beneficiary on the Guardian policy.
- Jerrold died in 1998 while single; the policy remained in force.
- Christine and Jerrold’s children each claimed the proceeds; the insurer interpleaded the funds, and the children sought a declaration that RCW 11.07.010 revoked Christine’s beneficiary designation.

## Issues

1. Whether oral or extrinsic evidence of the insured’s post-divorce intent can preserve a former spouse’s beneficiary status despite RCW 11.07.010.
2. Whether the former spouse had standing to assert that applying RCW 11.07.010 to a policy issued before the statute’s enactment unconstitutionally impaired contractual obligations.
3. Whether the statutory exception for contracts or instruments that expressly provide otherwise applied to the policy.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment awarding the proceeds to the contingent beneficiaries, Joel and Nanette.
- RCW 11.07.010 automatically revoked Christine’s designation as beneficiary upon dissolution, treating her as having predeceased Jerrold.
- Jerrold’s oral statements and other extrinsic evidence did not satisfy the statute’s requirements to preserve or restore a former spouse’s beneficiary status.
- Christine lacked standing to raise a constitutional impairment-of-contract claim because the relevant contract rights belonged to the policy owner, and a beneficiary held only an expectancy.
- The policy did not contain language triggering the statutory exception for instruments that expressly provide the designation survives divorce.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 11.07.010, dissolution of marriage revokes a former spouse’s beneficiary designation in a nonprobate asset, and the former spouse is treated as having predeceased the owner, unless a statutory exception applies.
- A former spouse’s beneficiary status may be preserved only through the statute’s specified mechanisms (such as a valid post-dissolution redesignation consistent with the policy’s formal requirements), not through oral statements of intent.
- A named life-insurance beneficiary generally has an expectancy rather than a vested contractual right and therefore may lack standing to assert the policy owner’s constitutional contract-impairment claims.
- The statutory exception for governing instruments or contracts that “expressly provide otherwise” requires explicit language indicating the beneficiary designation survives dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court held that divorce revoked the ex-spouse’s beneficiary designation by operation of RCW 11.07.010, that oral evidence of the insured’s contrary intent could not override the statutory rule, and that the proceeds properly passed to the contingent beneficiaries because no statutory exception or valid post-divorce redesignation applied.


Mearns v. Scharbach, 103 Wash. App. 498, 12 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)