Unpublished Disposition, 857 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1987)

MEMORANDUM^* 

The trial court held that the insurance policies at issue "were taken out by the beneficiary (Parker) for his own benefit" and the insured (Freeman) "was merely a nominal party to these contracts of insurance." The court concluded that the policies were void at their inception in that 1) Parker lacked an insurable interest in Freeman's life, 2) the policies constituted an unlawful wagering contract and 3) they violated public policy due to the risk of increased danger placed upon the insured. Declaratory judgment was entered June 17, 1987. Parker timely appealed.

The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Freeman was merely a nominal party to the insurance contracts and that Parker, in fact, took the contracts out for his own benefit. In such situations, the policy is void unless the beneficiary has an insurable interest in the life of the insured. See Elmore v. Life Insurance Company of Virginia, 198 S.E. 5, 6 (S.C.Sup.Ct.1938); 3 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, Sec. 24:118 (2d Ed.1984). Cal.Ins.Code Sec. 10110 lists several categories of insurable interests. The relationship between Freeman and Parker did not establish an insurable interest by Parker in Freeman's life under Sec. 10110. Parker argues that in addition to the categories listed in Sec. 10110, an insurable interest in the life of a brother exists under common law. Assuming this to be true, Parker cannot prevail. The record indicates that Freeman and Parker, though close friends, were not related either by blood or marriage.

AFFIRMED.