- 14 -
connection, we note that the decades ensuing since Catalano have
seen State courts describe Louisiana law in a manner which seems
to conflict with respondent’s argument that community property
principles govern ownership of neither a policy itself nor its
proceeds.
For instance, we highlight two recent cases issued in the
context of a partition upon divorce of a marital community. In
Biondo v. Biondo, supra at p.9, 769 So. 2d at 102 (citations
omitted), the court articulated the Louisiana rule as follows:
While life insurance is generally considered sui
generis under Louisiana law, it is the proceeds of the
life insurance policy, not the policy itself, which are
not subject to claims of the community. There is a
clear distinction between the ownership of a policy of
life insurance and the right to receive the proceeds of
a life insurance policy after the death of the insured.
The issue of the ownership of the life insurance
proceeds is not before us today. The * * * policy was
acquired during the marriage and the existence of the
legal regime and is presumed to be community property.
Similarly, the court in Kambur v. Kambur, 94-775, p.6-7 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/95), 652 So. 2d 99, 103, further explained:
It is well settled in Louisiana that life
insurance proceeds, if payable to a named beneficiary
other than the estate of the insured, are not
considered to be a part of the estate of the insured.
The insurance proceeds do not come into existence
during the life of the insured, never belong to him,
and are passed by virtue of the contractual agreement
between the insured and the insurer to the named
beneficiary. Life insurance proceeds are not subject
to the Civil Code Articles relating to donations inter
vivos or mortis causa, nor are they subject to
community claims or the laws regarding forced heirship.
* * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011