Do generic life insurance beneficiary change provisions constitute express terms under Utah law? Hertzske v. Snyder Explained

In Hertzske v. Snyder, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether standard life insurance policy language regarding beneficiary changes constitutes “express terms” sufficient to prevent automatic revocation of a former spouse’s beneficiary designation upon divorce.

Background and Facts

Edward Hertzske obtained a $500,000 life insurance policy naming his then-fiancée Linda Snyder as primary beneficiary and his son Tyler as secondary beneficiary. After Edward and Linda married and later divorced, neither party mentioned the policy in divorce proceedings, nor did the divorce decree reference Utah Code section 30-3-5(1)(e). Edward died less than a month after the divorce decree was entered. Both Linda and Tyler claimed entitlement to the policy proceeds.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: first, the interplay between Utah Code sections 30-3-5(1)(e) and 75-2-804 regarding life insurance beneficiary designations in divorce; and second, whether the policy’s standard beneficiary change procedures constituted “express terms” under section 75-2-804(2) that would prevent revocation of the former spouse’s beneficiary status.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that Utah Code section 75-2-804(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that beneficiary designations of former spouses are revoked upon divorce. This presumption can only be rebutted by “express terms” in the governing instrument, court order, or marital property division contract. The court determined that section 30-3-5(1)(e) provides one method to rebut this presumption, but only when its specific statutory language is expressly included in the divorce decree.

Critically, the court ruled that generic policy language prescribing standard methods for changing beneficiaries does not constitute “express terms” sufficient to invoke the exception. Such language exists for the insurer’s protection, not to address divorce-related revocations. To qualify as “express terms,” the policy must contain language specifically stating that the beneficiary designation remains in effect despite divorce.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that practitioners cannot rely on standard insurance policy provisions to preserve a former spouse’s beneficiary status. To prevent automatic revocation under section 75-2-804(2), attorneys must either include the specific language required by section 30-3-5(1)(e) in divorce decrees or ensure that insurance policies contain explicit divorce-related provisions preserving beneficiary designations.