The parties disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. Immediately before her death, the deceased had, because of her medical condition, a vested right to bring forward an insurance benefit, but that right had ceased upon her death. The court had found that the sum available was part of the estate for the purposes of the 1975 Act. The policy was a joint-life furst death policy. Thr 1975 Act referred to the value of the estate immediately before the death.
Held: The appeal succeeded (McCombe LJ dissenting). Section 9 asked two questions: did she have a severable interest in the terminal illness benefit, and what was that value immediately before her death. The policy made no provision for the advanced benefit to be paid to one only of the insured lives. The deceased had a severable interest which remained contingent until a claim was made. Under section 9(1) the valuation of a severable interest should take into account the imminence of death. The valuation should take into account events occurring after the date at which valuation was to occur. Because no claim had been made the value immediately before the death was nil.
Ardn, McFarlane, McCombe LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1076, [2014] WLR(D) 339
Bailii, WLRD
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lim and Others v Walia ChD 26-Sep-2012
The court was asked: ‘where the proceeds of a fixed term joint life policy are paid over as the result of the death of the first of the joint lives insured, but in circumstances where it is to be assumed that the payment of the sum insured might . .
Cited – Powell v Osbourne CA 1993
The deceased had separated from his wife and was cohabiting with Miss Osbourne. The deceased and Miss Osbourne purchased a property as joint tenants, with the assistance of a mortgage. The purchase price had been andpound;91,000 and the mortgage was . .
Cited – Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland CA 19-Dec-2003
A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
Held: (Chadwick LJ . .
Cited – Dingmar v Dingmar CA 12-Jul-2006
A house was held upon joint tenancy between the deceased and one of his sons. The transfer into joint names took effect just before the deceased married the claimant. They lived at the property with her children. Seven years after the death, the son . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, Family, Insurance
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.535401