Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society 428 N.E.2d 110 (1981) Douglas bought a life insurance policy with Equitable Life and named his wife Doris as the beneficiary. Then he got a divorce. The divorce agreement made no mention of the insurance policy. Douglas stopped making payments on the insurance policy. Equitable notified him that the policy was being converted to a paid-up term policy with an expiration date 30 years in the future. The notification mentioned that Douglas retained the right to change the beneficiary with written consent. Douglas went on to marry Margaret and have a kid named Daniel. Douglas wrote a holographic will that left the insurance policy to Margaret and Daniel. However, he never bothered to write to Equitable and change the beneficiary. Douglas died. Margaret filed a claim with Equitable for the money from the policy. Equitable went to court in an interpleader action to determine who to give the money to. The Trial Court found that the money should go to Doris. Margaret appealed. As far as the Trial Court was concerned, the contract on file with Equitable clearly indicated that Doris was still the beneficiary. The Appellate Court affirmed. Margaret unsuccessfully argued that the will was a valid attempt to change the provisions of the insurance policy. The Appellate Court found that strict compliance was not required to change the beneficiary, but Douglas had taken no actions at all. The Appellate Court sympathized with Margaret, but found that there was good public policy in providing certainty to beneficiaries and insurance companies about who should get the money. They also noted that if Margaret had been vigilant and noticed the problem prior to Douglas' death, it would have been easy to fix. Remember, non-probate contracts (aka will substitutes) take precedence over wills, and wills take precedence over intestate succession. So the basic rule is that if you have a valid will and a valid insurance policy, the beneficiary listed on the insurance policy trumps the beneficiary listed in the will. Under the Uniform Probate Code (which was not in effect when this case was decided), divorce revokes by operation of law not only wills, but also will substitutes. If the Uniform Probate Code had been in effect, Doris' name (as well as her relatives) would have been stricken from the insurance policy and the now beneficiary-less policy would have reverted to Douglas' estate.