Scott Peterson can't collect on murdered wife's insurance, court rules

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/31/7 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

FRESNO - Scott Peterson, sentenced to death for murdering his wife, Laci, and her fetus in 2002, isn't entitled to the proceeds of her $250,000 life insurance policy, a state appeals court ruled today.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld a Stanislaus County judge's ruling that Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, the administrator of her estate, should get the insurance money.

The Petersons, who lived in Modesto, took out insurance policies on each other in 2001. Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002, when she was eight months pregnant. Her remains were found on the Richmond shoreline in April 2003, near an area where her husband said he had been fishing.

Scott Peterson was convicted in November 2004 by a jury in Redwood City,

[SmithL]

Now he can die broke!

[kdot]

and her fetus

Please people, Conner was a baby.

[Old Sarge]

sentenced to death for murdering his wife, Laci, and her fetus

Nope, no bias here.

[dighton]

So much for his dream of a luxury suite on death row.

[purpleraine]

My husband worked for the CA Youth Authority. One day an accountant went to the Superintendent and told him that an inmate was collecting social security. He was an orphan because he killed his parents.

The superintendent sent a letter to the director who called the Governor's office. The Gov called someone in DC and the law was changed the next week and signed by the president. I think it was during Reagan.

[mefistofelerevised]

If Scott Petersen was the beneficiary, no one should receive the money. I can’t stand insurance companies, but they should not have to pay.

[Gay State Conservative]

One would think that every life insurance policy would have a clause included that says that no person who is found guilty of having murdered a policyholder can collect the proceeds of that policy even if he/she is named as the beneficiary.

One would also think that all 50 states and DC have laws stating the same thing.

[Gay State Conservative]

If Scott Petersen was the beneficiary, no one should receive the money. I can’t stand insurance companies, but they should not have to pay.

Gotta disagree here.In a case like this the proceeds should be paid to her estate so that anyone entitled to inherit a portion of that estate would benefit.

[John123]

If Scott is on death row, how the heck can he spend the $250,000? So close but yet, so far...

[brityank]

If Scott is on death row, how the heck can he spend the $250,000?

He wouldn't; but his attorney's kids need their college funds, don'cha know!

[alwaysconservative]

It would be my guess that as the beneficiary, Scott is the contract recipient of the funds. The insurance company would have to pay out to him under the contract, but the Court ruled that he cannot profit from his crimes, so the insurance company’s payout was probably deposited with the Court instead of to Scott. The Court is just ordering that Scott cannot get the money that the insurance company paid out. And maybe Laci’s mom was an alternative beneficiary, and the court’s ruling just bumped Scott as a beneficiary as if he had predeceased Laci.

[JewishRighter]

OK. Speaking as an attorney, I can’t believe no one pointed out on this thread the sickness illustrated by this story: the American legal system requires a judicial ruling that a man who murders his wife and their unborn child, is found guilty of the murders and is sentenced for those murders, he cannot collect on her life insurance. For this there had to be lawyers, pleadings filed, briefs, argument before a judge, judicial staff time, etc?????!!!!!!

He should be sentenced to be executed, revived and executed again and the judiciary should be disbanded. Let the kid in the local scout troop with the best grade point average judge cases.

[LukeL]

It should go to next of kin, which I believe would be children first, then parents, then siblings.