A state slayer statute may apply to a life insurance payout when the beneficiary is accused of killing the policyholder. It’s a tragic and legally complex question that pits a fundamental legal principle against a grieving family’s right to justice. This scenario, while rare, raises critical legal questions about who is entitled to the insurance proceeds. A recent federal court decision, Popanda v. Roth, provides a powerful illustration of how courts navigate these thorny issues using legal tools like the interpleader action and state “slayer statutes.”
When an insurance company is faced with competing claims to a policy’s benefits—for instance, from an accused killer and the victim’s estate—it cannot simply choose who to pay. Doing so would expose the company to legal risk. This is where the law provides a safe harbor. At The Garner Firm, our attorneys are deeply experienced in handling these sensitive and complex life insurance disputes, ensuring that justice prevails and that the proceeds are distributed according to the law.
What is an Interpleader? The Insurance Company’s Safe Harbor
When a life insurance company knows it must pay out a death benefit but is unsure of the rightful recipient, it can initiate a legal action called an interpleader. In the Popanda case, Prudential Insurance Company filed an interpleader complaint, asking the court to determine whether Adam Roth, who killed his wife, could recover the proceeds from her policy.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, an interpleader allows a party holding a “stake” (in this case, the insurance money) to bring all potential claimants into a single lawsuit. The stakeholder—the insurance company—essentially tells the court, “We owe this money, but multiple people claim it. We are depositing the funds with you; please determine the rightful owner.”
Insurance companies use interpleader actions for two primary reasons:
- To Avoid Double Liability: Paying the wrong person could result in the company being sued by the correct beneficiary and forced to pay the claim a second time. An interpleader resolves all claims in one action, protecting the company from this risk.
- To Consolidate Litigation: Rather than facing multiple lawsuits from different claimants in different courts, the interpleader brings everyone to the same table for a final, binding decision.
Once the insurance company deposits the funds with the court, its role in the case is typically over. It can walk away, leaving the claimants to argue their case before the judge. This process is common not only in life insurance disputes but also in cases involving certain other benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), where beneficiary designations may be contested.
Can a Killer Inherit? Understanding “Slayer Statutes”
At the heart of cases like Popanda is a long-standing legal and moral principle: a person should not be allowed to profit from their own wrongdoing. Nearly every state, including Wisconsin, has codified this principle into law through what are commonly known as “slayer statutes“.
Wisconsin’s slayer statute, Wis. Stat. §854.14, states that an “unlawful and intentional killing of the decedent” revokes any provision in a governing instrument, like an insurance policy, that transfers property to the killer. The core question for any court applying this statute is whether the killing was both “unlawful” and “intentional.”
The statute provides several ways to establish this. A final criminal conviction for an intentional killing is conclusive proof. However, what happens when there is no straightforward conviction, as was the situation in the Popanda case? The statute anticipates this, allowing a court to determine “based on the preponderance of the evidence” whether the killing was unlawful and intentional, even in the absence of a criminal judgment. This provision became the central legal battleground in the dispute over Dominique Roth’s life insurance proceeds.
Case Study: Popanda v. Roth – Intent, Insanity, and Inheritance
The Tragic Facts
On March 10, 2020, Adam Roth stabbed and killed his wife, Dominique Roth, and her sister, Deidre Popanda. He also attacked his mother-in-law and another sister-in-law. When taken into custody, Roth did not deny his actions, stating, “I did it, I killed them”. Dominique had a life insurance policy through her employer that named Roth as the sole beneficiary.
The Legal Complication: An NGI Plea
In his criminal case, Roth pled guilty to first-degree intentional homicide but was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI). This created a unique legal challenge. Roth’s argument in the federal interpleader case was that because he was found NGI, his actions could not be considered “unlawful and intentional” under the slayer statute, and therefore he should be entitled to the life insurance money.
The Court’s Analysis: Civil vs. Criminal Intent
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had to decide what “unlawful and intentional” meant in this specific context.
- Was the Killing “Unlawful”? The court easily concluded that it was. There was no evidence that the killing was authorized by law, such as in an act of self-defense. The NGI finding excuses a person from criminal responsibility; it does not make an illegal act legal. An NGI finding is an “excuse defense,” not a “justification defense.” It acknowledges a wrong was committed but excuses the individual from criminal punishment due to mental illness.
- Was the Killing “Intentional”? This was the more complex question. The court drew a critical distinction between criminal intent (mens rea) and civil intent. Citing a similar case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the court reasoned that the slayer statute focuses on civil intent. Civil intent only requires that a person intended their actions; it does not require that they understood their actions were wrong or criminal.
The court found overwhelming evidence that Roth acted with civil intent.
- He admitted to the acts during his plea hearing in the criminal case.
- He made unprompted confessions, stating, “I killed my wife, I stabbed her in the back and I slit her throat”.
- The nature of his guilty plea—admitting to the essential elements of intentional homicide—confirmed that he acted with purpose, even if his mental state prevented him from appreciating the wrongfulness of that purpose.
The court concluded that a person can act with the purpose to kill while simultaneously lacking the ability to understand the criminality of their actions. Because the evidence clearly showed Roth’s actions were both unlawful and (civilly) intentional, the Wisconsin slayer statute applied. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dominique’s estate, barring Roth from receiving the life insurance proceeds. ERISA did not preempt the slayer statute.
Navigating Complex Life Insurance and ERISA Disputes
The Popanda case highlights the intricate legal landscape that families must navigate after a tragedy. These disputes often involve the intersection of federal and state courts, civil and criminal law, and complex statutes like ERISA and state slayer statutes. The distinction between different legal standards—like civil versus criminal intent—can be the deciding factor in who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits.
At The Garner Firm, our attorneys possess the specialized knowledge required for these challenging cases. We have extensive experience representing families in life insurance beneficiary disputes and interpleader actions. We understand how to gather the necessary evidence from related court proceedings and present a compelling case to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly and justly. We work tirelessly to see that the principle enshrined in our laws—that no one should profit from their own crime—is upheld.
Contact The Garner Firm Today
If you are a referring attorney or a family member facing a complex dispute over life insurance or ERISA benefits, you need counsel that is prepared for these unique challenges. Contact The Garner Firm for a consultation to discuss your case. We are here to provide the expert guidance and determined advocacy you need to achieve the right result.