No cases have been referred to us and none have been discovered in our research that allow insurance proceeds to be distributed in this situation other than to the designated beneficiary, i. e., without even a general clause that might indicate the parties' intent to dispose of the insurance. In Lynch v. Bogenrief, Iowa, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 1976), the Supreme Court of Iowa dealt with a similar question. In Lynch, the ex-wife (named beneficiary) and widow-administrator of a deceased fireman both claimed his retirement system death benefits.

Many states follow this rule when interpreting divorce settlement provisions. See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 666 F. Supp. 190, 192 (D.Idaho 1987) (applying Idaho law), aff'd, 859 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1988); Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Blight, 399 F. Supp. 513, 515 (E.D.Pa. 1975) (applying Pennsylvania law), aff'd, 538 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1976); Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 1976); Keeton v. Cherry, 728 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987); Bell v. Garcia, 639 S.W.2d 185, 191 (Mo.Ct.App. 1982); Haley v. Schleis, 97 N.M. 561, 562, 642 P.2d 164, 165 (1982); Culbertson v. Continental Assurance Co., 631 P.2d 906, 913-14 (Utah 1981). The district court was correct in finding that the waiver contained in the marital property settlement specifically dealt with the pension fund benefits, including the Death Benefit at issue in this case.

Many states follow this rule when interpreting divorce settlement provisions. See, e.g., Bell v. Garcia, 639 S.W.2d 185 (Mo.Ct.App. 1982); Culbertson v. Continental Assur. Co., 631 P.2d 906 (Utah 1981); Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 1976). The district court was correct in finding that the waiver contained in the marital property settlement specifically dealt with the pension fund benefits, including the Death Benefit at issue in this case.

See, e.g., id.; Sorensen v. Nelson, 342 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 1984). See, e.g., Trueblood v. Roberts, 15 Neb.App. 579, 732 N.W.2d 368 (2007); Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 1976). .29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V 2011).

The court noted that in previous Iowa cases, the focus of the inquiry had been on the language of the dissolution decree and whether there was any stipulation or agreement that governed the parties' property rights. In Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 1976), the ex-spouse was awarded retirement system death benefits because the dissolution decree made no mention of the death benefits payable and therefore did not control the contingent interest of the ex-spouse. An opposite result was reached in Sorensen v. Nelson, 342 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 1984), in which the provisions of the dissolution decree disposed of the life insurance policy proceeds.

It is a well-established rule that divorce or dissolution per se does not void the designation of a named spouse on a life insurance policy. Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793, 797 (Iowa 1976), 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1714 (1982). On other hand, where a stipulation specifically provides for disposition of insurance proceeds, that provision is given effect.

Id. 485 P.2d at 139-140 (emphasis added). The Iowa Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Mullenax on facts essentially the same as in the case before us. Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa 1976). The Iowa court first noted that the general rule is that divorce does not affect a beneficiary designation and that jurisdictions holding to the contrary are "in stark contrast to the great weight of authority."

There is respectable authority supporting the chancellor's view that appellee had an insurable interest. Begley v. Miller, 137 Ill. App. 278 (1907); Lynch v. Bogenrief, 237 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa, 1976); Tromp v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co., 143 Kan. 98, 53 P.2d 831 (1936). In considering insurable interest in the life of another in Home Mutual Benefit Association v. Keller, 148 Ark. 361, 230 S.W. 10, we quoted liberally from Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 26 L.Ed. 924 (1881).