⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit considers who should receive the proceeds of Cecile Gold’s life insurance policy. In 2007, the policy was arranged through a trust, with borrowed money paying the premiums. It later passed to outside investors. After Gold died in 2022, her estate and Wells Fargo, acting for an investment fund, claimed the death benefit. The lower court found that the arrangement was intended from the outset to benefit strangers without an insurable interest. But it still ruled against the estate because Gold had participated in, and benefited from, the arrangement. Her estate now appeals. An insurable interest is a recognized stake in someone’s continued life, such as a family relationship or financial interest. The requirement guards against insurance being created as a wager on a stranger’s death. That is different from selling a policy that was valid when issued. Wisconsin law does not automatically invalidate a policy for lacking insurable interest. Instead, section 631.07 allows a court to redirect the money to someone equitably entitled to it. Equitable entitlement means the claimant must establish a fair legal basis for receiving the proceeds, not merely point out the original policy’s defect. Matthew Bleich, for the estate, will argue that using Gold’s participation to bar recovery undermines the law’s protection against wagering. Andrew Dykens, for Wells Fargo, will argue that the estate stands in Gold’s position and cannot collect after she participated and benefited. The doctrine of unclean hands can deny equitable relief because of a claimant’s own wrongdoing connected to the transaction. The dispute is what conduct should trigger that bar, and how it fits this statute.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Estate of Cecile Gold (No. 25-1871) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.