Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3917.05 (2026)

Exemption of policy proceeds from attachment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

October 1, 1953

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

No policy of group insurance, nor the proceeds thereof, when paid to any employee thereunder, is liable to attachment, garnishment, or other process, or to be seized, taken, appropriated, or applied by any legal or equitable process or operation of law, to pay any liability of such employee, his beneficiary, or any other person who may have a right thereunder, either before or after payment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: In re Frederick, 495 B.R. 813 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Frederick, 495 B.R. 813 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 41× “§ 522 (d)(11)(C) on O.R.C. § 3917.05.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).”

In Re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 15× “10 2 , and found the provisions extend the exemption to a beneficiary who is a dependent of the debtor, although in that decision, unlike this case, the individual was determined to not be a dependent of the debtor: As both parties have noted, and the Court confirms, there is no…”

In Re Mccall, 383 B.R. 419 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 34× “66(A)(6)(c) and O.R.C. § 3917.05. (Doc. No. 44). The *421 Trustee objected to this claim of exemption.”

Matter of Heins, 83 B.R. 504 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988). · cites it 9× “As both parties have noted, and the Court confirms, there is no available case law interpreting O.R.C. § 3917.05. In order to understand this section, it must be read together with § 3911.”

White v. North (In Re North), 108 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989). · cites it 6× “66(A)(6)(c), read in conjunction with O.R.C. 3917.05, does not permit a nonde-pendent beneficiary to claim an exemption in a matured life insurance policy or proceeds thereof.”

In Re Fahey, 352 B.R. 288 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2006). “§ 58-58-165; Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3917.05. Other states, such as Massachusetts, adopted exemption language based on, but different from, that proposed by the NCIC, containing phrases such as “when paid to any employee or employees thereunder, or to their beneficiaries” (“Similar…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.