Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An insured’s will attempted to leave his life insurance proceeds to his second wife and son. The court awarded the proceeds to his ex-wife, the named beneficiary, because the will did not satisfy the policy’s specific requirements for changing the beneficiary.
Legal Significance: Reinforces the majority rule that a will cannot change a life insurance beneficiary unless the insured has substantially complied with the policy’s change procedures. Testamentary intent alone is insufficient to override a non-probate asset’s beneficiary designation.
Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1953, Douglas Cook purchased a life insurance policy, naming his then-wife, Doris, as the beneficiary. The policy stipulated that a beneficiary change required written notice to the insurer and endorsement on the policy. Douglas and Doris divorced in 1965; the divorce decree made no mention of the insurance policy. Douglas later married Margaret, with whom he had a son, Daniel. In 1976, eleven years after his divorce, Douglas executed a holographic will explicitly bequeathing the insurance policy to Margaret and Daniel. Douglas died in 1979, having never taken any steps to change the beneficiary with the insurance company as required by the policy terms. Upon his death, both Doris, the named beneficiary, and Margaret, on behalf of the estate and as a legatee under the will, claimed the policy proceeds. The insurer filed an interpleader action, depositing the funds with the court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an insured’s unambiguous testamentary disposition of life insurance proceeds to a new beneficiary override a prior beneficiary designation when the insured failed to comply with the policy’s prescribed method for making such a change?
No. The will was ineffective to change the beneficiary. The court affirmed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an insured’s unambiguous testamentary disposition of life insurance proceeds to a new beneficiary override a prior beneficiary designation when the insured failed to comply with the policy’s prescribed method for making such a change?
Conclusion
This case establishes that testamentary intent, however clear, does not supersede the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
Legal Rule
An attempt to change the beneficiary of a life insurance policy by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed the general rule that life insurance is a non-probate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, cons
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An insured cannot change a life insurance beneficiary by will if