Wash. Rev. Code » Title 48 · Chapter 48.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.440 (2026)

Spouse's rights in life insurance policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every life insurance policy heretofore or hereafter made payable to or for the benefit of the spouse of the insured, and every life insurance policy heretofore or hereafter assigned, transferred, or in any way made payable to a spouse or to a trustee for the benefit of a spouse, regardless of how such assignment or transfer is procured, shall, unless contrary to the terms of the policy, inure to the separate use and benefit of such spouse: PROVIDED, That the beneficial interest of a spouse in a policy upon the life of a child of the spouses, however such interest is created, shall be deemed to be a community interest and not a separate interest, unless expressly otherwise provided by the policy.
(2) In any life insurance policy heretofore or hereafter issued upon the life of a spouse the designation heretofore or hereafter made by such spouse of a beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the policy, shall create a presumption that such beneficiary was so designated with the consent of the other spouse, but only as to any beneficiary who is the child, parent, brother, or sister of either of the spouses. The insurer may in good faith rely upon the representations made by the insured as to the relationship to him or her of any such beneficiary.
[ 2009 c 549 s 7076; 1947 c 79 s .18.44; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 45.18.44.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1952–2012 · leading case: Est. of Madsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 650 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Madsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 650 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 24× “521 (1923), this court interpreted the predecessor to RCW 48.18.440, Rem. Comp. Stat. § 7230-1, as it applied to a policy provision reserving the right of the insured to change beneficiaries.”
Miller v. Paul Revere Life Ins., 501 P.2d 1063 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 6× “370, and also upon *306 RCW 48.18.440, which deals with the rights of a spouse in insurance policies and provides, inter alia: (2) In any life insurance policy heretofore or hereafter issued upon the life of a spouse the designation heretofore or hereafter made by such spouse of…”
Gail Michelman v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Insuranc, 685 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2012). “440(1) (“[T]he beneficial interest of a spouse in a policy upon the life of a child of the spouses, however such interest is created, shall be deemed to be a community interest and not a separate interest, unless expressly otherwise provided by the policy.”
Dean v. Lehman, 18 P.3d 523 (Wash. 2001). “2d at 798 (quoting RCW 48.18.440(1)). The court was confronted with the question of whether the above statutory language converted “community property life insurance policies into the sole and separate property of the beneficiary spouse.”
Francis v. Francis, 573 P.2d 369 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “That question is expressly dealt with in RCW 48.18.440. Paragraph two of that section provides that in any policy issued upon the life of a spouse, that spouse's designation of a beneficiary shall create a presumption that the beneficiary was so designated with the consent of…”
Fed. Old Line Ins. v. McClintick, 569 P.2d 1206 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “13 (1977); RCW 48.18.440. When there is no genuine issue of material fact that justifies continuing to trial, the second stage of an interpleader action may be adjudicated on a summary judgment motion.”
Est. of Meyer v. Comm'r, 66 T.C. 41 (1976). · cites it 12× “Petitioner has not proved by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that it was decedent's intent to make the policy his wife's separate property. And Wash. Rev. Code sec.”
Nat'l Bank of Com. v. Lutheran Bhd., 246 P.2d 843 (Wash. 1952). “44 (RCW 48.18.440), which provides in substance that the designation by a spouse of a beneficiary in an insurance policy upon his life shall create a presumption that the beneficiary is so designated with the consent of the other spouse.”
Dean v. Lehman, 18 P.3d 523 (Wash. 2001). “2d 196 (quoting RCW 48.18.440(1)). The court was confronted with the question of whether the above statutory language converted "community property life insurance policies into the sole and separate property of the beneficiary spouse.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.440(1) — 4 cases
Est. of Madsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 650 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1982). “521 (1923), this court interpreted the predecessor to RCW 48.18.440, Rem. Comp. Stat. § 7230-1, as it applied to a policy provision reserving the right of the insured to change beneficiaries.”
Gail Michelman v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Insuranc, 685 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2012). “440(1) (“[T]he beneficial interest of a spouse in a policy upon the life of a child of the spouses, however such interest is created, shall be deemed to be a community interest and not a separate interest, unless expressly otherwise provided by the policy.”
Dean v. Lehman, 18 P.3d 523 (Wash. 2001). “2d at 798 (quoting RCW 48.18.440(1)). The court was confronted with the question of whether the above statutory language converted “community property life insurance policies into the sole and separate property of the beneficiary spouse.”
Dean v. Lehman, 18 P.3d 523 (Wash. 2001). “2d 196 (quoting RCW 48.18.440(1)). The court was confronted with the question of whether the above statutory language converted "community property life insurance policies into the sole and separate property of the beneficiary spouse.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.440(2) — 1 case
Miller v. Paul Revere Life Ins., 501 P.2d 1063 (Wash. 1972). “370, and also upon *306 RCW 48.18.440, which deals with the rights of a spouse in insurance policies and provides, inter alia: (2) In any life insurance policy heretofore or hereafter issued upon the life of a spouse the designation heretofore or hereafter made by such spouse of…”
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.