Are States’ “Slayer Laws” Preempted by ERISA Rules on Entitlement to Pension Survivor Benefits?

Here’s an unusual case to start off a new week.  In Laborer’s Pension Fund v. Miscevic, the 7th Circuit faced interesting statutory interpretation questions about whether “survivor” benefits available under a murdered’s man’s pension must be paid to the very woman who killed him, his “surviving” wife.   

The first question focused on ERISA’s rules, asking whether the federal law (which does not contain “slayer” provisions) preempted any disqualifying effect of state slayer laws.  Ultimately, considering the issue as a matter of first impression for federal appellate courts, the 7th Circuit rejected the ERISA preemption argument.   

But that left the question of the effect of the Illinois law in light of additional, unique facts. The wife argued her state criminal court verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” barred the disqualifying effect of the Illinois slayer statute.  The Court analyzed similar language of the Illinois slayer statute and the Illinois insanity law and concluded:

Put simply, an individual may not appreciate the criminality of her conduct, but still have “intentionally” and “unjustifiably” cased a death. Indeed, in this case, the judge at [the wife’s] criminal trial made an explicit finding that [she] intended to murder [her husband] “without justification,” despite concluding [she] was not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Noting a split among state courts in analyzing the effect of “not guilty by reason of insanity” on entitlement to inheritance under other states’ slayer laws, with Mississippi and New Jersey permitting recovery by a party deemed insane at the time of the murderous act, the 7th Circuit concluded that Illinois would not follow that path.  The Court concluded that the Illinois slayer statute barred this wife from recovering her husband’s pension benefits.

This case is interesting for reasons other than interpretation of the federal and state laws. The case was filed as an interpleader by the Pension Fund, as the Fund had received conflicting claims for survivor benefits from the wife and the couple’s 11 year old daughter.  The minor-aged daughter will now take the survivor benefits, but, the “minor child benefit” for the plan lasts only until the minor is 21.  It is perhaps an unfortunate side effect of an already sad case that without the murderous facts, the wife would have been a survivor until her death, but the innocent (and, perhaps, needy) daughter’s survivor benefits will terminate after 10 years.  Should there be the option to treat any benefits payable to someone deemed “not guilty of murder by reason of insanity” as being subject to a constructive trust in favor of the next of kin?   

My thanks to always eagle-eyed attorney Thomas Murphy in Phoenix, Arizona for sending the report on the 7th Circuit case, decided January 29, 2018.