N.D.Okla.: Interesting, but not about application of Fourth Amendment law

Unum Life Insurance sought declaratory judgment that it wanted to know who to pay life insurance to under Oklahoma’s “slayer rule” that a killer can’t take life insurance or under an estate. Here, the alleged killer was not mentally fit, but the slayer rule is applied by a preponderance of the evidence. He told the officers at the time of the search of his house that they needed a search warrant to come into his house. That was some evidence against him under the rule that he knew what was going on. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Umdenstock, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223833 (N.D.Okla. Nov. 19, 2021)*:

Application of the slayer rule as an affirmative defense requires only a preponderance of evidence. Hampton, 696 P.2d at 1034. Here, there is sworn testimony of Broken Arrow police officer, Barry Pickup, who questioned Hayden regarding Zachary’s whereabouts on the day Zachary’s body was found. See Transcript of Preliminary Hearing on June 12, 2019, Umdenstock, Case No. CF-2018-5696, OSCN Doc. No. 1045478214 (Tulsa Cnty.), filed on Nov. 25, 2019. According to Officer Pickup, Hayden initially lied to the officer, denying that he knew where his father was and telling the officer that Zachary’s “girlfriend had come by earlier and picked him up.” Id. at 10. Hayden also denied knowing his father’s phone number when the officers offered to call him, and according to the officer’s testimony, Hayden rebuffed efforts to check for Zachary in the residence, where the body was eventually found. Id. at 9-13. The officer testified that Hayden stated, “you guys are invading my property, if you want in, come back with a warrant.” Id. at 11. The officer further testified that, when he eventually prevailed upon Hayden to allow officers into the residence, Hayden confessed to killing his father after an altercation between the two on the evening of the murder. Id. at 15. There is no question that Hayden’s conduct was wrongful, and Hayden’s attempts to conceal his actions from law enforcement–coupled with his ostensibly erudite knowledge of the Fourth Amendment–evince an understanding of the nature of his conduct. No reasonable factfinder would construe Hayden’s actions as blameless and deserving of a benefit that would be otherwise barred under the slayer statute.

Having considered Smallwood’s motion to disburse the funds (Dkt. # 26) to Hayden or the Tulsa County probate court, and having reviewed the available evidence, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, Smallwood’s motion to disburse the funds should be denied. Additionally, the Court finds that no reasonable juror, given the available evidence, would rule in Hayden’s favor. Accordingly, the interpleaded funds should be disbursed to T.U., the only contingent beneficiary of Zachary’s insurance policy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.