Divorce, Separation, and Insurance Claims: Protecting Your Coverage When Your Marriage Ends

Insurance claims are stressful enough on their own. Add a divorce or separation to the mix, and the process becomes exponentially more complicated — and more dangerous. When spouses are separating, neither party is thinking about the fine print of a homeowner’s policy. But they should be. A pending insurance claim during a divorce can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if neither spouse is paying attention, that money can be delayed, reduced, or lost entirely.

This article covers the insurance issues that arise when marriages end — from the question of who has authority to negotiate a claim during separation, to the spousal arson problem and the innocent co-insured doctrine, to the community property implications for insurance proceeds, to the practical steps both spouses should take to protect their interests. Whether you are a policyholder going through a divorce or an attorney representing one, this is the landscape you need to understand.

Pending Insurance Claims During Divorce Proceedings

A house fire, a burst pipe, a tree through the roof — any of these can happen while a divorce is pending. When they do, the insurance claim becomes a marital asset, and the claim itself becomes subject to the same property division rules as every other asset in the marriage. The problem is that insurance claims do not pause because a divorce is filed. The insurer has its own timelines, its own deadlines, and its own process. If neither spouse is managing the claim because each assumes the other is handling it — or because neither wants to cooperate with the other — the claim can stall, expire, or be settled for far less than it is worth.

Under California Family Code § 2040, from the date a petition for dissolution is filed, neither party may dispose of community property without the written consent of the other party or a court order. This applies to insurance claim proceeds as well. Settling an insurance claim for a low amount or cashing an insurance check and spending the money without the other spouse’s knowledge or consent can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty under Family Code § 1101.

There is another timing problem. Insurance policies have deadlines baked into them — deadlines for reporting losses, deadlines for submitting proofs of loss, deadlines for completing repairs. The divorce court operates on its own schedule, which has nothing to do with the insurance policy’s requirements. If the divorce drags on for months or years, the insurance claim deadlines do not wait. Both spouses have an obligation to preserve the value of the community estate, and allowing an insurance claim to lapse because of a marital dispute can result in liability to the spouse who let it happen.

Who Has Authority to File, Negotiate, and Settle the Claim?

This is one of the most common questions that arises when divorce and insurance claims intersect, and the answer depends on the policy language, the type of loss, and the stage of the divorce.

The Named Insured vs. “An Insured”

Most homeowner policies distinguish between the named insured (the person or persons listed on the declarations page) and “an insured”(which typically includes the named insured’s spouse if they are a resident of the same household). This distinction matters enormously in the divorce context. The named insured typically has broad authority to file claims, submit documentation, negotiate with the adjuster, and accept settlement offers. A spouse who is merely “an insured” under the policy may have standing to file a claim and cooperate with the investigation, but the insurer will often look to the named insured as the primary point of contact for settlement.

For a deeper analysis of the critical difference between the named insured and other insureds under the policy, see our article on Named Insured vs. “An Insured”: Why the Distinction Matters.

When Both Spouses Are Named Insureds

If both spouses are listed as named insureds on the declarations page, both have equal authority under the policy to file claims, negotiate, and communicate with the insurer. This can create a practical nightmare during a contested divorce. One spouse may accept a settlement offer that the other spouse considers inadequate. One spouse may provide a recorded statement that contradicts the other spouse’s account. One spouse may authorize repairs that the other spouse has not approved.

When both spouses are named insureds and the marriage is dissolving, the insurer is caught in the middle. The carrier generally cannot settle with one named insured over the objection of the other, but it also cannot be expected to mediate a marital dispute. The practical solution is often for the divorce court to designate one spouse as having authority over the insurance claim, or for the spouses to agree on joint management of the claim as part of their temporary orders.

When Only One Spouse Is the Named Insured

If only one spouse is the named insured, the other spouse’s status depends on whether they are still a “resident of the same household.” Most standard homeowner policies define “insured” to include the named insured’s spouse only if they reside in the same household. Once a spouse moves out — which frequently happens during a separation — they may lose their status as an insured under the policy entirely.

This does not mean the non-named spouse loses their interest in the claim proceeds. If the home is community property, the insurance proceeds are community property regardless of whose name is on the policy. But the non-named spouse may find that the insurer refuses to deal with them directly, directing all communications and payments to the named insured. This is a dangerous situation that requires immediate attention in the divorce proceedings.

Intentional Damage by an Estranged Spouse: The Innocent Co-Insured Doctrine

One of the most devastating scenarios in divorce-related insurance disputes is when one spouse intentionally damages or destroys the marital home — whether out of spite, to collect insurance proceeds, or to prevent the other spouse from getting the property. Every homeowner’s policy excludes intentional loss. The standard ISO language states that the insurer will not pay for loss caused by “intentional loss, meaning any loss arising out of any act an ‘insured’ commits or conspires to commit with the intent to cause a loss.”

The question that immediately arises: if one spouse intentionally burns down the house, does the other spouse — the innocent spouse — also lose coverage? The answer, in California and most other states, is no. This is the innocent co-insured doctrine, and it is one of the most important protections available to policyholders in divorce situations.

California Insurance Code Section 530 and the Severability Clause

California Insurance Code § 530 provides the statutory foundation for the innocent co-insured doctrine. It states:

The key word is “the insured” — singular. When there are multiple insureds on a policy, this provision only bars recovery by the insured who committed the willful act. It does not bar recovery by the innocent co-insured. California courts have consistently held that Section 530 applies to each insured individually, not collectively.

The modern homeowner’s policy reinforces this through the severability clause(sometimes called the “Concealment or Fraud” condition or “Separation of Insureds” provision). This clause provides that the policy applies separately to each insured. What this means in practice is that each insured’s rights and obligations under the policy are evaluated independently. One insured’s misconduct does not taint the other insured’s coverage.

What the Innocent Spouse Recovers

Under the innocent co-insured doctrine, the innocent spouse can typically recover their proportionate share of the loss — generally 50% of the community property interest in a community property state like California. Some courts have gone further and allowed the innocent co-insured to recover up to the full policy limits, depending on the specific policy language and the equitable circumstances.

The insurer, having paid the innocent co-insured, then has a right of subrogation against the wrongdoing spouse. The guilty spouse committed arson (a felony under California Penal Code § 451), and the insurer can pursue them for the amounts paid out. The innocent spouse should not be penalized because the person they married decided to commit a crime.

For a comprehensive treatment of this doctrine and the case law supporting it, see our detailed article on the Innocent Co-Insured Doctrine.

Property Settlement Agreements That Ignore Open Insurance Claims

This is one of the most common — and most costly — mistakes in divorce cases involving insurance claims. The spouses negotiate a property settlement agreement (or the court enters a judgment) that divides the house, the bank accounts, the retirement funds, and the personal property. The agreement addresses who gets the house, who pays the mortgage, and who is responsible for maintenance. But it says nothing about the pending insurance claim.

An open insurance claim is a chose in action — a legal right to recover money. It is a community property asset if the loss occurred during the marriage and the property is community property. Under California Family Code § 2550, the court is required to divide community property equally. If the insurance claim is not addressed in the property settlement agreement, several problems can result:

• The claim may be treated as the sole property of the spouse who retains the home. If one spouse is awarded the house in the divorce, the other spouse may lose their interest in the claim proceeds unless the agreement specifically preserves it.
• The spouse who does not retain the home may have no standing to pursue the claim.If the divorce decree awards the home and “all rights and interests therein” to one spouse, the insurer may argue that this includes the insurance claim.
• The claim may fall between the cracks entirely. Neither spouse pursues the claim because each believes the other is handling it, or because neither wants to cooperate with the other.
• Statute of limitations issues may arise. By the time the oversight is discovered, it may be too late to pursue the claim or file suit against the insurer.

The Coverage Gap Between Filing for Divorce and Final Decree

The period between the filing of a divorce petition and the entry of a final judgment is one of the most dangerous periods for insurance coverage. This period can last six months (California’s mandatory waiting period under Family Code § 2339), but in contested cases it frequently stretches to a year, two years, or longer. During this entire period, the parties are legally still married but practically separated — and the insurance policy may not account for this limbo.

The Residency Requirement

The standard homeowner’s policy defines “insured” to include the named insured’s spouse, but only if they are a “resident of the same household.” The moment one spouse moves out of the home, the policy’s definition of “insured” may no longer include that spouse. This creates a coverage gap: the departing spouse has a community property interest in the home and in any insurance proceeds, but they may not be an “insured” under the policy for purposes of filing claims, receiving notice of cancellation, or being protected by the policy’s liability coverage.

The Duty to Notify the Insurer

Most homeowner policies require the named insured to notify the insurer of material changes in the risk. A separation — where one spouse moves out and the home may be left vacant or occupied differently — is arguably a material change. If the home is left vacant for an extended period (most policies define “vacant” as unoccupied for 60 consecutive days or more), the vacancy exclusion may apply and certain coverages — particularly vandalism and malicious mischief — may be suspended.

Neither spouse wants to be the one who causes a coverage lapse. If you are the spouse who moves out, make sure someone is maintaining the property and that the insurer is aware the home is still occupied. If you are the spouse who stays, make sure the premiums are being paid. Both spouses have a fiduciary duty under Family Code § 1100 to preserve community assets, and allowing the insurance policy to lapse through neglect is a breach of that duty.

Who Pays the Premiums?

During the separation period, the question of who pays the insurance premiums is both a practical and a legal issue. If the premiums were historically paid from a joint account that is now frozen, or if the spouse who handled the finances has stopped paying, the policy can lapse. A lapsed policy cannot be used to make a claim. If the home burns down the day after the policy lapses because the premium was not paid, there is no coverage — and both spouses lose.

California law provides some protection. Under California Insurance Code § 677.2, when a homeowner policy is canceled for nonpayment of premium, the insurer must provide at least 10 days’ written notice to the named insured. If there is a mortgage on the property (which there usually is), the mortgagee also receives notice. But if the departing spouse is not a named insured and has not arranged for independent notice, they may not learn about the cancellation until it is too late.

When One Spouse Removes the Other from the Policy

During a contentious divorce, it is not uncommon for the named insured to contact the insurance company and remove the other spouse from the policy — or to cancel the policy entirely and take out a new one in their name alone. This is problematic on multiple levels.

First, if the ATROs are in effect (and they are, from the moment the petition is served), removing a spouse from a community property insurance policy may violate Family Code § 2040. The insurance policy protects a community asset — the home — and reducing coverage for that asset without the other spouse’s consent or a court order could constitute a violation of the restraining order.

Second, removing a spouse from the policy eliminates their status as an insured, which affects their ability to file claims, receive loss payments directly, and be covered under the policy’s liability provisions. If a loss occurs after the removal, the remaining spouse receives all the insurance proceeds — which may need to be accounted for in the property division, but the removed spouse is in a significantly weaker position.

Third, some insurers will not remove a spouse from a policy while the couple is still legally married and both names are on the deed. If the home is community property and both spouses are on title, the insurer may require both parties to consent to any changes to the policy. This provides some protection, but it depends on the insurer’s internal practices, not on any legal requirement.

Community Property Implications for Insurance Proceeds

California is a community property state. Under Family Code § 760, property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. This includes the marital home (if purchased during the marriage or with community funds), improvements made to the home, and personal property inside the home. When a covered loss occurs during the marriage, the insurance proceeds that flow from the damage to community property are themselves community property.

This means both spouses have an equal interest in the insurance proceeds, regardless of whose name is on the policy, who filed the claim, or who has been communicating with the adjuster. The community property characterization applies to all components of the claim — the dwelling payment, the personal property payment, the additional living expense (ALE) payments, and any other covered amounts.

Separate Property Complications

The community property analysis becomes more complicated when the home is one spouse’s separate property — for example, a home purchased before the marriage, or a home received by gift or inheritance during the marriage. Under California law, separate property remains separate property throughout the marriage (Family Code § 770). If the home is one spouse’s separate property, the insurance proceeds for the structure (Coverage A) generally belong to that spouse alone.

However, even in a separate property home, the personal property contents may be community property (if acquired during the marriage with community funds), and the community may have a reimbursement interest in the home itself if community funds were used to pay the mortgage, make improvements, or pay insurance premiums. These reimbursement claims under Family Code § 2640 can affect how the insurance proceeds should be allocated between the spouses.

For more on how community property principles affect insurance claims, see our article on Community Property and Insurance Proceeds.

Additional Living Expenses During Separation

Additional living expense (ALE) coverage — also called Coverage D or “Loss of Use” — pays for the increased cost of living when the insured home is uninhabitable. During a divorce, ALE raises unique questions. If both spouses were living in the home before the loss, both are displaced. The insurer is obligated to pay the increased cost of maintaining the household’s standard of living. But if the spouses are now living separately, the “household” has effectively split into two.

Insurers sometimes try to limit ALE to the cost of housing one household, arguing that the policy only covers one residence. This position is often wrong. If both spouses were residents of the insured premises at the time of the loss, both were displaced, and the policy should cover the reasonable additional living expenses for both — even if they are now living in two separate locations. The ALE calculation should account for the actual increased costs incurred by the family as a whole.

Spousal Arson and the Severability Clause

Spousal arson is not a theoretical problem. It is a recurring fact pattern in insurance litigation, particularly during divorce proceedings. Emotions run high, financial pressures mount, and the marital home — the most valuable asset most couples own — becomes a target. The FBI and National Fire Protection Association data consistently show that a disproportionate number of residential arsons are committed by current or former intimate partners.

When one spouse commits arson, the insurer will deny the entire claim if it can. The carrier’s preferred argument is that the intentional act exclusion bars all coverage for all insureds. This is where Insurance Code § 530 and the severability clause become critical.

How the Severability Clause Works

The severability clause (also called “Separation of Insureds”) provides that the insurance policy applies separately to each insured. The standard ISO language reads: “This insurance applies separately to each ‘insured.’ This condition shall not increase our limit of liability for any one ‘occurrence.’”

The effect of this clause is that each insured is treated as if they have their own separate policy. One insured’s intentional act is evaluated only against that insured’s coverage. The innocent insured’s coverage is unaffected. The same principle applies to the concealment and fraud condition: if one spouse lies to the insurer during the claim, that fraud taints only the lying spouse’s coverage — not the innocent spouse’s coverage.

How Insurers Try to Circumvent the Doctrine

Insurers have tried multiple strategies to avoid paying innocent co-insureds in spousal arson cases. These include:

• Arguing that the intentional act exclusion uses “an insured” rather than “the insured.”Some policy forms use the phrase “an insured” in the exclusion, which the carrier argues means that any insured’s intentional act bars all insureds’ coverage. California courts have generally rejected this argument when a severability clause is present, holding that the severability clause modifies the exclusion.
• Claiming the innocent spouse knew about or participated in the arson. The insurer may investigate whether the “innocent” spouse truly had no knowledge or involvement. This is legitimate. If the spouse conspired in the arson, they are not an innocent co-insured.
• Denying the entire claim and forcing the innocent spouse to litigate. Some carriers will deny the claim outright, knowing that many policyholders — especially those already going through a financially devastating divorce — cannot afford to hire an attorney and pursue the claim.

What Happens When the Family Home Is Sold — Pending Claims

In many divorces, the marital home is sold as part of the property division. This can happen by agreement or by court order under Family Code § 2552. When the home is sold while an insurance claim is still pending, several important questions arise.

Does the Claim Survive the Sale?

Yes — generally, a pending insurance claim does survive the sale of the property, but the details matter. The insurance claim is a contractual right between the policyholders and the insurer. When the property is sold, the insurance policy terminates as to the new owner (the buyer gets their own policy), but the existing claim for a loss that occurred during the policy period remains viable. The former policyholders — the divorcing spouses — retain the right to pursue the claim to conclusion.

However, there are complications. If the claim involves dwelling damage (Coverage A), the insurer may argue that the policyholders no longer have an insurable interest in the property because they sold it. This argument is generally wrong — the insurable interest is measured at the time of loss, not at the time of settlement — but it is an argument carriers have raised. Under California Insurance Code § 286, the measure of indemnity is determined at the time of loss.

The Repair vs. Cash Settlement Issue

When the home has been sold, the policyholders can no longer make repairs to the property. This raises the question of whether the insurer is obligated to pay replacement cost value (RCV) or only actual cash value (ACV). Most homeowner policies condition the payment of RCV on the actual repair or replacement of the damaged property. If the home has been sold “as is” (at a reduced price reflecting the unrepaired damage), the policyholders may be limited to ACV unless the policy language allows RCV payments without requiring repairs.

This is an area where the property settlement agreement can make a critical difference. If the agreement specifies that the insurance claim proceeds will be used to compensate one or both spouses for the loss in property value, this can support an argument for full indemnity. If the agreement is silent, the insurer has more room to argue for a reduced payment.

When the Sale Price Reflects the Damage

If the home is sold at a reduced price because of unrepaired damage from the insured loss, both spouses absorb that loss in the sale price. The insurance claim should then compensate for that reduction. The measure of the loss is the cost to repair the damage (or the diminution in value, depending on the policy and circumstances), and the fact that the home was sold does not eliminate the insurer’s obligation to pay for the covered damage. Both spouses should ensure that the sale documentation reflects the price reduction attributable to the unrepaired damage, as this becomes evidence in the claim.

Joint Ownership and Insurance: Broader Considerations

The divorce-and-insurance problem is a specific subset of a broader issue: how insurance policies handle jointly owned property. Whether the co-owners are spouses, domestic partners, family members, or business partners, the insurance questions are similar: who can file a claim, who receives payment, and what happens when co-owners disagree.

For a broader discussion of these issues, see our article on Joint Ownership and Insurance Claims. The joint ownership article covers scenarios beyond divorce, including inherited property, business partnerships, and family co-ownership arrangements that present similar insurance complications.

Practical Steps: Don’t Let the Claim Fall Through the Cracks

The most common outcome in divorce-related insurance disputes is not a dramatic fight over the claim proceeds. It is something far more mundane and far more damaging: the claim simply falls through the cracks. Neither spouse pursues it aggressively because they are consumed by the divorce, because they do not trust the other spouse, or because their attorneys are focused on custody and support and have not thought about the insurance claim. By the time anyone realizes what has happened, the claim has been underpaid, the deadlines have passed, or the insurer has closed its file.

Here are the practical steps every policyholder going through a divorce should take to protect their insurance claim.

Step 1: Identify All Pending and Potential Claims

At the outset of the divorce, both parties should identify any pending insurance claims and any conditions that might give rise to future claims. Has there been a fire, a water leak, a hail storm, a break-in? Is there mold in the walls? Is the roof damaged? Any damage that occurred during the marriage and is potentially covered by the policy is a community asset that needs to be identified and addressed.

Step 2: Preserve Evidence

Both spouses should document the condition of the property. Photographs, videos, inspection reports, contractor estimates — all of this evidence should be preserved. In a contentious divorce, there is a risk that one spouse will make unauthorized repairs (to conceal damage or to claim credit for improvements) or will allow conditions to worsen through neglect. Document everything before the situation deteriorates.

Step 3: Notify the Insurer

If there is a pending claim, both spouses should ensure the insurer knows that both parties have an interest in the claim. If you are not the named insured, send a written notice to the insurer (by certified mail) advising them that you are a co-owner of the property, that a divorce is pending, and that you request copies of all correspondence and payments related to the claim. The insurer may or may not comply, but you have created a record that you asserted your rights.

Step 4: Address the Claim in Court Orders

Ask the divorce court to include provisions in temporary orders (and eventually in the final judgment) that address the insurance claim. These provisions should specify:

1. Which spouse has primary responsibility for managing the claim (filing documents, attending inspections, communicating with the adjuster).
2. That neither spouse may settle the claim without the other’s written consent or a court order.
3. How the claim proceeds will be divided or held (e.g., in escrow or in the attorney’s trust account) pending the property division.
4. That both spouses are required to cooperate fully with the insurer’s investigation.
5. That neither spouse may cancel or modify the insurance policy without the other’s consent or a court order.

Step 5: Consider Hiring a Public Adjuster or Insurance Attorney

A public adjuster or insurance coverage attorney can serve as a neutral claims professional who manages the insurance claim on behalf of both spouses. This is particularly valuable when the spouses cannot cooperate with each other but both need the claim to be handled competently. The public adjuster works for the policyholders — not the insurer — and can ensure that the claim is properly documented, negotiated, and settled while the divorce proceeds on a separate track.

Step 6: Monitor All Deadlines

Insurance claims have deadlines. Some are set by the policy (e.g., one year to file a proof of loss), some are set by statute (e.g., the statute of limitations for breach of contract is four years under California Code of Civil Procedure § 337), and some are set by the insurer as part of the claims process. During a divorce, it is easy for these deadlines to slip. Create a tracking document. Share it with your family law attorney, your insurance attorney (if you have one), and your public adjuster (if you have one). Do not assume that anyone else is tracking the deadlines for you.

Step 7: Protect the Personal Property Claim

If the insured loss includes damage to personal property (contents), both spouses need to participate in the inventory process. Each spouse knows what they owned, what it cost, and when it was acquired. If one spouse handles the contents claim alone, they may overlook the other spouse’s items, undervalue community property, or (in adversarial situations) deliberately omit the other spouse’s belongings. Both spouses should submit their own inventories, and the contents claim should reflect the full household.

Step 8: Coordinate Additional Living Expenses

If both spouses are displaced from the home, both should be tracking their additional living expenses. The ALE coverage under the policy pays for the difference between your normal living expenses and your actual living expenses while displaced. During a separation, these expenses will be incurred separately. Keep detailed records of every expense — temporary housing, meals, storage, laundry — and submit them to the insurer. Do not assume that only the named insured can claim ALE.

A Note for Family Law and Insurance Coverage Attorneys

The intersection of divorce law and insurance law is an area where family law attorneys and insurance coverage attorneys need to communicate. Family law attorneys are experts in property division, spousal support, and custody. Insurance coverage attorneys are experts in policy interpretation, bad faith, and claims handling. When a significant insurance claim is pending during a divorce, both types of expertise are needed.

Family law attorneys: if your client has a pending insurance claim or a recent loss to the marital home, consult with an insurance coverage attorney about the claim’s value, the policy’s deadlines, and the options for preserving the claim during the divorce proceedings. Do not treat the insurance claim as a minor issue — it can be worth more than the equity in the home itself.

Insurance coverage attorneys: if your client is going through a divorce, coordinate with the family law attorney about the property settlement. Make sure the settlement agreement preserves the client’s interest in the claim. Alert the family law attorney to policy deadlines that cannot be extended. And be aware that the insurer may try to exploit the marital conflict — playing one spouse against the other, using one spouse’s recorded statement against the other, or settling with the cooperative spouse for less than the claim is worth.

Key Statutes and Legal Authorities

The following California statutes are most frequently implicated in divorce-related insurance disputes:

• California Insurance Code § 530— Willful act defense applies only to “the insured” who committed the act; foundation for the innocent co-insured doctrine.
• California Insurance Code § 286— Measure of indemnity determined at the time of loss.
• California Insurance Code § 677.2— Notice requirements for cancellation of homeowner policies.
• California Family Code § 760— Community property presumption for property acquired during marriage.
• California Family Code § 770— Definition of separate property.
• California Family Code § 1100— Fiduciary duty of spouses to manage and control community property.
• California Family Code § 1101— Remedies for breach of fiduciary duty between spouses.
• California Family Code § 2040— Automatic temporary restraining orders (ATROs) upon filing of dissolution petition.
• California Family Code § 2339— Six-month waiting period for dissolution of marriage.
• California Family Code § 2550— Equal division of community property.
• California Family Code § 2552— Court authority to order sale of community property.
• California Family Code § 2640— Reimbursement for separate property contributions to community property.
• California Penal Code § 451— Arson.
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 337— Four-year statute of limitations for breach of written contract.

Conclusion

Divorce is already one of the most financially and emotionally difficult experiences a person can go through. When an insurance claim is layered on top of it, the complexity multiplies. The stakes are high — a single insurance claim on a home can involve hundreds of thousands of dollars in dwelling repairs, contents replacement, and additional living expenses. Allowing that claim to be mishandled, undervalued, or abandoned because of a marital dispute is a loss that neither spouse can afford.

The law provides tools to protect both spouses. The innocent co-insured doctrine protects the spouse who did nothing wrong. The ATROs prevent either party from unilaterally disposing of community assets, including insurance claims. The severability clause ensures that one spouse’s misconduct does not destroy the other spouse’s coverage. But these protections only work if someone invokes them.

If you are going through a divorce and you have a pending or potential insurance claim, take action now. Do not wait for the divorce to be finalized. Do not assume your spouse is handling the claim. Do not assume your divorce attorney knows about the insurance deadlines. Identify the claim, preserve the evidence, address it in your court orders, and make sure someone competent is managing the claim from start to finish.

Related Resources

• The Innocent Co-Insured Doctrine: Full Analysis
• Joint Ownership and Insurance Claims
• Named Insured vs. “An Insured”: Why the Distinction Matters
• Community Property and Insurance Proceeds