112.515
Proceeds of insurance on life and other benefit plans of decedent. (1) Except as provided under
subsection (2) of this section, proceeds payable under any of the following
instruments to or for the benefit of a slayer of a decedent or an abuser of a
decedent, as beneficiary or assignee of the decedent or as beneficiary or
assignee of an heir or devisee of the decedent, must be paid to the secondary
beneficiary or, if there is no secondary beneficiary, to the personal
representative of the estate of the decedent or the decedent’s heir or devisee:
(a) A policy or
certificate of insurance on the life of the decedent.
(b) A certificate
of membership in any benevolent association or organization on the life of the
decedent.
(c) Rights of the
decedent as survivor of a joint life policy.
(d) Proceeds
under any pension, profit-sharing or other plan.
(2) Proceeds
payable under any of the instruments specified in subsection (1) of this
section to or for the benefit of a slayer of a decedent or an abuser of a
decedent as beneficiary or assignee of an heir or devisee of the decedent shall
be paid to the slayer or abuser if the heir or devisee specifically provides
for that payment by written instrument executed after the death of the
decedent. [1969 c.591 §64; 2005 c.270 §7; 2005 c.535 §2a]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case:
Herinckx v. Sanelle, 385 P.3d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Herinckx v. Sanelle, 385 P.3d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 29× “First, they contend that the trial court erred by granting Standard’s motion to dismiss based on its determination, as applied here, that ORS 112.515 (part of Oregon’s so-called “slayer statutes”) is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1973 (ERISA).”
Munger v. Intel Corp. (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Specifically, the court noted “application of ORS 112.515 would mean that plan administrators ‘[could not] make payments simply by identifying the beneficiary specified by the plan documents.”
D. N. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).
“See Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.515 (2001).1 Because she was ineligi- 1 The 2001 version of the statute was current when the criminal trial took place and was used by the district court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.515(1) — 2 cases
Herinckx v. Sanelle, 385 P.3d 1190 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“First, they contend that the trial court erred by granting Standard’s motion to dismiss based on its determination, as applied here, that ORS 112.515 (part of Oregon’s so-called “slayer statutes”) is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1973 (ERISA).”
Munger v. Intel Corp. (D. Or. 2023).
“Specifically, the court noted “application of ORS 112.515 would mean that plan administrators ‘[could not] make payments simply by identifying the beneficiary specified by the plan documents.”
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.