Murder victim’s life insurance doesn’t cancel restitution owed by his killer

Listen to this article

A Minnesota man argued that he should not have to pay restitution for the funeral of the man he shot and killed because life insurance proceeds covered the funeral costs in full. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the man was still required to pay restitution costs despite the fact that the mother was able to pay for her son’s funeral using life insurance proceeds that she received.

Dontae White was convicted of second-degree intentional murder following the April 2020 shooting death of Kevin Beasley. White was sentenced in October 2021, but the district court reserved the issue of restitution. In January 2022, Beasley’s mother, H.T., requested restitution for the cost of her son’s funeral. The total was $15,778.68. The district court ordered White to pay the full amount of requested restitution.

However, White challenged the restitution. He argued that H.T. did not suffer “out-of-pocket losses” since those funeral expenses were offset by life insurance proceeds paid out to H.T. He claimed that, if we were forced to pay for the funeral, H.T. would get a double recovery and he would have to pay for a loss that has been remedied by the life insurance coverage.

Both the district court and Court of Appeals disagreed with White, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The court explained that it had determined that the “amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense” is equal to the “total or aggregate diminution or deprivation of money, goods, or services that a victim suffers as a direct result or natural consequence of the defendant’s crime.” As a consequence of that understanding, the court concluded that district courts should also consider the value of any economic benefits conferred onto the victim by the defendant due to the offense.

Adam Petras, assistant Hennepin County attorney, argued that White was asking the court to determine the economic value of a murder victim’s life. “It is very, very difficult, if not outright impossible to place an economic value on a life,” Petras asserted. “And I’m not talking about the pain and suffering. I’m not talking about the punitive damages piece. I’m just talking about what that person would bring to the world, and what that person would earn going forward.”

“Insurance was paid out as a result of the crime, the death, and H.T. used the life insurance proceeds,” said Rachel Bond, assistant public defender. “A life insurance policy was entered into, in order to provide benefits upon an event, that event being death. When that event happened, the life insurance was paid out. The record is crystal clear that it was used for one thing, and one thing only, and that’s funeral expenses.”

However, the court found that, when it comes to restitution, life insurance and home insurance are distinct from one another. While home insurance is paid out for replacement or repair of a covered item or property, life insurance does not have the same function, the court concluded. “Unlike property or vehicle insurance that provides for replacement of the appraised value of a tangible good or reimbursement of repair costs, a life insurance policy is an investment contract, not merely an indemnity contract,” wrote Justice Gordon Moore.

“When the family of the deceased person uses the proceeds of a life insurance policy to pay for the cost of a funeral — an expense explicitly included in the definition of out-of- pocket expenses recoverable under a restitution order under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) — an economic loss is undoubtedly felt; a cash asset that would have been available for 11 other purposes is no longer available,” Moore continued. “Life insurance proceeds are not a credit available to the defendant to reduce the amount of restitution owed to a family member of the deceased person; rather they are an asset of the family member.”