With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting the proposition that the absence of the word “sole” (i.e., “sole beneficiary”) in the separation agreement left the decedent free to add his sister as a second beneficiary. Id. at *4 (“[N]or does the use of the term ‘beneficiary’ imply that decedent was permitted to name more than one beneficiary under the subject life insurance policy.”). The reasoning of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Stewart is entirely consistent with Ohio law and rulings from numerous jurisdictions, which have recognized that an “irrevocable beneficiary” has a vested right to insurance proceeds and that the insured has no right to name another beneficiary. See, e.g., Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hussey, 63 Ohio St.3d 640, 590 N.E.2d 724 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Boyd, 781

A: holding that a husband unlawfully attempted to name a beneficiary other than his daughter who was the irrevocable beneficiary pursuant to a separation agreement in a divorce decree
B: recognizing that a property settlement and divorce decree which provided for a certain party to be named the irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy was valid and enforceable against anyone subsequently named as a beneficiary
C: holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit
D: recognizing that a divorce decree which obligated the divorcing husband to name the children of his first marriage as the irrevocable beneficiaries of an insurance policy precluded him from naming his new wife as a beneficiary entitled to a portion of the insurance benefits
A.