Solutions Manual For

Solutions Manual For Business Law Today, Standard Edition, Text & Summarized Cases 14 th Edition By Roger LeRoy Miller (All Chapters 1- 36, 100% Original Verified, A+ Grade) All Chapters Arranged

Reverse: 36-1

This is The Original Solutions Manual For 14 th Edition, All other Files in The Market are Fake/Old/Wrong. 1 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today - Standard Edition: Text & Summarized Cases 14e, 9798214045849; Chapter 36: Insurance, Wills, and Trusts Solution and Answer Guide Miller, Business Law Today - Standard Edition: Text & Summarized Cases 14e, 9798214045849; Chapter

36: Insurance, Wills, and Trusts

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Critical Thinking Question in Feature.........................................................................1 Adapting the Law to the Online Environment—Critical Thinking..........................................................1 Critical Thinking Questions in Cases...........................................................................2 Case 36.1—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................2 Case 36.2—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................3 Case 36.3—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................3 Chapter Review.............................................................................................................4 Practice and Review................................................................................................................................4 Practice and Review: Debate This...........................................................................................................5 Issue Spotters...........................................................................................................................................5 Business Scenarios and Case Problems...................................................................................................6 Critical Thinking and Writing Assignments...........................................................................................12

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION IN FEATURE

ADAPTING THE LAW TO THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT —CRITICAL

THINKING

1.In an earlier version of the RUFADAA, an online executor had the same rights to the deceased person’s internet accounts as did the deceased person when alive. Why do you think these guidelines met strong opposition?Solution: Opposition to the original Uniform Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) was mostly based on privacy concerns. It is one thing, critics said, for an executor to have access to photos or letters in a deceased person’s desk drawer. It is quite another to give the online executor unfettered access to every online photo and every e-mail connected with a person’s life. Also, privacy advocates complained that the UFADAA did not give enough protection to third parties whose online communications with the deceased person would be exposed to the executor.Furthermore, federal and state laws place strong restrictions on who can access online accounts other than the account holder. By not requiring explicit permission from the deceased person, the UFADAA was in direct conflict with this type of legislation and put companies in the difficult position of having to violate one law when complying with another.1 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 2 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today - Standard Edition: Text & Summarized Cases 14e, 9798214045849; Chapter 36: Insurance, Wills, and Trusts

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS IN CASES

CASE 36.1—CRITICAL THINKING

1.Ethical. Why should public policy disfavor stranger-originated life insurance policies?Solution: The premise of life insurance is that the future beneficiary usually must suffer some loss on the insured’s death. That loss can be financial or emotional. So, for example, family members have a mutual insurable interest, allowing spouses to buy life insurance for each other or parents to take out life insurance policies on their children. As noted in the text, a business owner can have an insurable interest in the life of a valuable employee.With a stranger-owned life insurance policy (STOLI), there is no insurable interest. That is, the future beneficiary does not suffer any loss when the insured dies. Indeed, a STOLI is an investment on the part of a stranger or a group of strangers, such as the investment companies that owned the Kluener and Chisholm policies in the Columbus Life Insurance Company case. Put differently, a STOLI allows investors to speculate financially on the lives of others.Ethically, this is problematic. Most policy owners with an insurable interest in the insured’s life would prefer that the insured live as long as possible, regardless of the fact that the policy owner will benefit financially when the insured dies. Without this insurable interest, policy owners will almost always want the insured to die as soon as possible, so that they can collect the payout.STOLIs also encourage crimes such as conspiracy and fraud. For example, an elderly person might exaggerate their worth to purchase a sizable life insurance policy with the understanding that a third-party investor will cover the premiums. Eventually, the insured sells the policy to the investor for a cash payment. When the insured dies, the stranger/investor gets a payout. Both sides benefit at the expense of the insurance company and its other customers, who must pay higher premiums to cover the fraudulent death benefits. For these ethical and legal reasons, STOLIs are illegal or heavily regulated in most states.STOLIs are not the same as legal life settlements, also known as viaticals. A viatical occurs when an existing policyholder—who already owns life insurance on themselves—sells the life insurance policy to a third party. That third party then pays all future premiums and becomes the sole beneficiary of the policy when the insured dies. (Note that when the policy was originally purchased, there was an insurable interest.) A viatical would be appealing to a policy owner without any heirs who has a serious illness and high medical costs, for instance. To recap: A STOLI is created solely with the intent to profit the future beneficiary, while a viatical involves the sale of an existing policy that had been originally purchased for legitimate insurance reasons.

CASE 36.2—CRITICAL THINKING

1.Legal Environment. Besides an in terrorem clause, what is an effective method to disinherit a person who would otherwise have a right to a decedent’s estate? Discuss.Solution: For most heirs, or other putative beneficiaries, simply not being mentioned in a will is sufficient to ensure that they get nothing. In other words, the key to disinheriting a person is to execute a will that leaves that individual nothing.And, in fact, in most states, under most circumstances, no one has an absolute right to anyone’s estate.Testators can decide to will their property to whomever they choose. Because there are exceptions to 2 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 3 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today - Standard Edition: Text & Summarized Cases 14e, 9798214045849; Chapter 36: Insurance, Wills, and Trusts protect some spouses from being completely disinherited, however, the exclusion of a spouse from participation in an estate should be explicit.Of course, the estate of a person who dies intestate will pass according to a state’s laws of descent. Thus, the drafting and execution of a legal will is the most effective method for individuals to direct the distribution of their estates.

2.Ethical. Was Thorn’s addition of an in terrorem clause to his will ethical? Explain.Solution: Yes, Thorn’s addition of an in terrorem clause to his will was ethical. There is no requirement that testators give their estates to specific beneficiaries. A testator may choose to leave nothing to any person for any reason. Of course, the intent should be clear. The use of an in terrorem clause to disinherit a contestant to a will can effectively demonstrate this intent.In some situations, the legal standard is the minimal ethical standard. State law does not allow a spouse to be completely disinherited, for example, and may protect minors from the loss of shelter or support. The inadvertent or accidental disinheritance of a testator’s other natural beneficiaries may be prevented.Testators are otherwise free to leave their property to whomever. One argument in support of this principle is the recognition of property ownership and the owner’s right to transfer that privilege at the owner’s discretion. Priority is thereby given to an individual’s allocation of capital over the state’s distribution of wealth.

CASE 36.3—CRITICAL THINKING

1.What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that the Dowdy Family Trust had provided for a specific child to become co-trustee on the death of that child’s parent—Deborah to succeed Betty, for example. How would the result have been different?Solution: If the Dowdy Family Trust had provided for a specific child to become co-trustee on the death of a parent, Michael, or another specific named individual, would have succeeded Dennis on Dennis’s death and become co-trustee with Betty. This may have still been inconsistent with other provisions of the trust, but it could have prevented the sale of the remaining trust property and thereby have avoided the dispute that gave rise to this case.If the specified successor were one of the couple’s stepchildren, however, other disagreements might have arisen due to the inherent conflict between the surviving parent, as current beneficiary, and the stepchild, as future beneficiary, who would have been serving as co-trustees.

CHAPTER REVIEW

PRACTICE AND REVIEW

In June 2018, Bernard Ramish set up a $48,000 trust fund through West Plains Credit Union to provide tuition for his nephew, Nathan Covacek, to attend Tri-State Polytechnic Institute. The trust was established under Ramish’s control and went into effect that August. In December, Ramish suffered a brain aneurysm that caused frequent, severe headaches but no other symptoms. In August 2019, Ramish developed heat stroke and collapsed on the golf course at La Prima Country Club.After recuperating at the clubhouse, Ramish quickly wrote his will on the back of a wine list. It stated, “My last will and testament: Upon my death, I give all of my personal property to my friend Bernard Eshom and my home to 3 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

• / 4