Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Beneficiary Status for Brother Who Killed Sister with Hammer

The Supreme Court has ruled that a man who killed his sister cannot be excluded as a beneficiary of her life insurance policy. The court found that he was acquitted of murder during the trial due to being declared not criminally responsible, as he was suffering from a complete mental disorder that prevented him from understanding the illegality of his actions.

The Civil Chamber determined that the provision in Article 92 of the Insurance Contract Law does not apply in this case. This article states that if the insured's death is caused intentionally by the beneficiary, the beneficiary loses the right to the benefits outlined in the contract, with these benefits reverting to the policyholder's estate. The judges interpreted that the phrase "caused intentionally" requires awareness and intent to cause death, and thus being charged with the crime, which does not include a scenario like the one examined.

The insured had signed a life insurance contract with Ibercaja, with an initial contribution of 23,600 euros, naming one of her three brothers as the sole beneficiary in the event of her death. She visited his home daily to assist him with household chores and caring for his grandchild. One day, despite having a medical appointment, he was found unkempt and began to strike his sister with two hammers on the head, resulting in her death.

The Provincial Court of Logroño found that the proven facts constituted a murder committed by the accused, who was acquitted due to the complete defense of full mental disorder, imposing a measure of confinement in a psychiatric prison facility for 20 years.

Following the criminal trial, a second civil proceeding declared the accused incapacitated and appointed his daughter as guardian, who sued Ibercaja to claim the payment of 23,600 euros, plus interest, owed to her father as the sole beneficiary of the policy. Both the Court of First Instance No. 5 of Logroño and the Provincial Court dismissed the claim, understanding that in this case, it was possible to deprive the man of the benefit according to Article 92 of the aforementioned law.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling authored by Manuel Almenar, completely refutes the lower courts' stance and explains that in the case under review, the criminal sentence established that the accused suffers from "cognitive deterioration compatible with a dementia syndrome," which, at the time of the crime, severely affected his understanding of reality, "completely abolishing his capacity for comprehension." This is why the trial court declared the accused not criminally responsible after acknowledging the exemption provided in Article 20.1 of the Penal Code, as he could not "understand the illegality of the act or act according to that understanding" when he killed his sister due to the aforementioned anomaly or mental disorder.

The chamber summarizes that "since the cognitive deterioration suffered by the claimant completely nullified his capacity for comprehension, preventing him from understanding what he was doing and the consequences of his actions, it is not possible to attribute the assault on his sister to him, nor, therefore, to affirm that we are dealing with a conscious and voluntary action as truly intended. Therefore, in accordance with the jurisprudential line exposed, we understand that the provision contained in Article 92 does not apply, which means that the insurance contract deploys all its effects."