Facts
On 12 February 1997, V. took out a unit-linked life insurance policy with insurance company Z. He designated his partner [L.] as a 50% beneficiary, his son [Y.] as a 25% beneficiary, and his daughter X. as a 25% beneficiary. On 31 March 1999, V. made a will in which he favoured [L.] to the detriment of his two children. On 2 May 2000, V. asked [Z.] to change the investment fund of his insurance, which resulted in the issuance of a new policy on 24 May 2000 with the same beneficiaries as the initial policy. After V.'s death on 10 June 2001, [Z.] paid the death benefit to [L.] in accordance with the policy. X. and [Y.] then brought an action against [Z.] to each obtain a share of the death benefit.Considerations
The Federal Court ruled that the designation of beneficiaries in the insurance policy did not fall under the provision on unconditional acceptance of Art. 12 para. 1 IPA. The policyholder could indeed freely and unilaterally modify the beneficiary clause without the insurer's agreement. Thus, the beneficiary clause in the new policy of 24 May 2000 did not reflect the policyholder's intention to modify the designation of beneficiaries, but simply reproduced that of the initial…