I respectfully dissent.
There is no basis for the majority’s conclusion that Ms. Cassidy waived her right as beneficiary to the proceeds of Mr. Cassidy’s life insurance policy by consenting to the terms of the property settlement agreement. Further, the majority’s conclusion that the evidence produced at trial “clearly shows” Mr. Cassidy’s intent to remove Ms. Cassidy as a beneficiary under that policy is not borne out by the record.
A former spouse’s claim to insurance policy proceeds based upon her status as a named beneficiary is wholly distinct from any claim she may make based upon her prior marital relationship. (Grimm v. Grimm (1945) 26 Cal.2d 173, 175 [157 P.2d 841]; Thorp v. Randazzo (1953) 41 Cal.2d 770, 773 [264 P.2d 38].) Consequently, she may waive her right to a community interest in an insurance policy yet remain a beneficiary who is fully entitled to the proceeds of the policy upon the death of the insured. (Grimm, ibid.; Thorp, supra, at pp. 773-774.)
“This court and other courts have therefore applied to property settlement agreements the rule that general expressions or clauses in such agreements are not to be construed as including an assignment or renunciation of expectancies and that a beneficiary therefore retains [her] status under an insurance policy ... if it does not clearly appear from the agreement that in addition to the segregation of the property of the spouses it was intended to deprive either spouse of the right to take property under ... an insurance contract of the other.” (Grimm, supra, 26 Cal.2d at p. 176, italics added, citing Sandrosky v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1933) 217 Cal. 578 [20 P.2d 325].) Accordingly, “expectancies under ... an insurance policy are regarded as *611waived only when it appears that the attention of the parties was directed to such expectancies and their intention to disclaim future rights that might develop from such expectancies was made clear in the contract.” (Grimm, supra, at p. 177, italics added, citing Estate of Crane (1936) 6 Cal.2d 218 [57 P.2d 476, 104 A.L.R. 1101].)
It is precisely the strict and unequivocal language of these standards which leads to the conclusion that the majority err.
The majority first conclude that “in this case the agreement does clearly show an intent by the Cassidys to waive expectancies which may have existed at the time of the settlement.” (Majority opn., ante, p. 605.) A review of the terms of the property settlement agreement executed by the Cassidys leads to the opposite conclusion.
None of the three provisions in the agreement which pertain to the release of property claims of the former spouses against each other is sufficiently specific to effectuate a waiver. Paragraph E broadly states that “[t]he purpose of this Agreement is to effect a final and complete settlement of all rights and duties of the parties with reference to each other, including their respective property and support rights . . . .”
Similarly, the language of Paragraph 12, although “sweeping in nature,” is still general: “Except as herein may be otherwise expressly provided, each of the parties hereto does hereby release, relinquish, quitclaim, and surrender to the other and his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, all and every right as the spouse of the other and any and all present or future claims or demands of every nature on or against the other, or on or against the property of the other, it being understood that this Agreement is intended to settle the rights and obligations of the parties hereto in all respects, [¶] Each of the parties hereby relinquishes and waives . . . the right to inherit from the other or rights to or in connection with any family allowance, and the right to receive in any manner any property of the other upon the death of the other except as a devisee, legatee or beneficiary under any last will and testament hereafter executed by either party wherein the other party may be named as a beneficiary or recipient of any money or property from the other.”
The third provision contains broad language effectuating a general transfer of all the rights and property designated in the agreement. Paragraph 13 states in relevant part: “Notwithstanding the failure or refusal of either party to execute any [documents or instruments which are necessary to vest the respective titles and estates in the parties to the property set forth in the agreement], this Agreement shall nonetheless upon its effective date consti*612tute a full transfer of the property herein designated to be transferred to and granted by each party.”
The rule stated in Grimm, supra, 26 Cal.2d at page 176, that “general expressions or clauses in such agreements are not to be construed as including an assignment or renunciation of expectancies,” precludes any of these broad provisions from being interpreted as a waiver of beneficiary rights.
Further, the provisions specifying the community property which is subject to transfer under the agreement fail to identify the future expectancies in the proceeds of the insurance policy. Exhibit “A,” which lists all of the community property, refers to the “[c\ash surrender value of life insurance, less loans thereon, on the lives of each of the parties.” (Italics added.) Exhibit “C,” which specifies the community property being transferred to deceased as his separate property, includes “[a]ll life insurance on Husband’s life.” Neither provision identifies the specific life insurance policy. In addition, neither provision contains language that in any way denotes the proceeds of the policy as opposed to its cash surrender value.
I am completely unconvinced that any of these provisions indicate “that the attention of the parties was directed to [the life insurance] expectancies and [that] their intention to disclaim future rights that might develop from such expectancies was made clear in the contract” (Grimm, supra, 26 Cal.2d at p. 177).
Thorp, supra, 41 Cal.2d 770 refutes the majority’s interpretation of the terms of the Cassidys’ agreement. In Thorp, the property settlement agreement contained language by which the wife waived “‘all claims to any benefits that she may have at present, or which may hereafter be derived from the following described life insurance policies . . . .’” (Id., at p. 772.) Just as crucial as the reference to future interests was the express application of the waiver to any interests in the specifically identified life insurance policies. In marked contrast, the Cassidys’ agreement did not specifically identify the life insurance policy nor did it clarify that the waiver provisions applied to both present interests and future expectancies under that policy.
The other cases cited by the majority fail to support their interpretation of the Cassidys’ agreement. In Meherin v. Meherin (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 596, 597 [222 P.2d 305], the language by which the wife was found to have waived her right as a beneficiary released “ ‘all the interest in and to that certain insurance policy with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, bearing the number 918996-7-C’ ” and granted, assigned and sold to the *613husband all of the wife’s “ ‘right, title and interest in and to said policy and the interest and benefits therein.’” Again, compared to the Cassidys’ provisions, this waiver language is specific in its reference to both the life insurance policy and the expectancy in “benefits” of that policy.
Similarly, in First Western Bank & T. Co. v. Omizzolo (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 555, 557 [1 Cal.Rptr. 758], the material clause of the property settlement agreement at issue was one by which the husband transferred to the wife, as her separate property, “ ‘all right, title and interest in and to all pension and retirement moneys and accumulations thereof growing out of or having to do with the work and employment of said Wife as a teacher in the School Department of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.’” The court determined that the husband had waived his beneficiary rights to the wife’s retirement fund. (Id., at pp. 562-563.) Again, the retirement fund in First Western Bank, like the life insurance policies in Thorp and Meherin, was specifically identified in the property settlement agreement.
Estate of Smith (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 205 [50 Cal.Rptr. 374] and Estate of Wiedemann (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 269 [48 Cal.Rptr. 558] are also factually distinguishable in that neither involves a former spouse’s independent status as a designated beneficiary. In Smith, the waiver language by which the parties “ ‘waive[d], release[d] and relinquishe[d] to the other all claims which each may now have, or might hereafter otherwise acquire against the other, as husband or wife, or otherwise, arising out of the marital relation . . .’” (241 Cal.App.2d at p. 208) was found to preclude the wife from any inheritance by succession from her former husband’s estate. (Id., at pp. 210-212.) Because her claim was based solely upon her right as a former spouse, and not upon any independent right as a named beneficiary, the express waiver of all present and future claims arising out of the marital relationship was sufficiently specific.
In Wiedemann, supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 269, a former wife was found to have waived any claim to property bequeathed to her by her husband’s will which had been executed prior to the property settlement agreement. The agreement contained language similar to that in Smith—“ ‘each party hereto waives any right to inherit from the estate of the other party hereto, either by will or otherwise . . . .’” (Id., at pp. 270-271.) The court included among the reasons for its decision the fact that the agreement’s provisions “clearly, explicitly and unambiguously indicate an intention on [wife’s] part to renounce her rights under decedent’s will.” (Id., at p. 274.) The court held that those explicit provisions, and the fact that the wife in that case was aware of the bequests in the will at the time the agreement was executed, provided “a clear indication that the parties’ attention had been di*614reeled to the expectancies under the will and that they intended that [the wife] waive future rights which might develop from such expectancies.” (Ibid.)
I fail to see how these factually distinguishable cases support the majority’s analysis of the general waiver language found in this agreement. These cases only reinforce the conclusion that Ms. Cassidy did not waive her expectancy as a beneficiary because the provisions of the agreement do not adequately demonstrate “that the attention of the parties was directed to [the life insurance] expectancies” (Grimm, supra, 26 Cal.2d at p. 177).
It is uncontested that the designation of Ms. Cassidy as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy was never changed. Ordinarily, an insured’s failure to change a beneficiary designation confirms the original designation. (Majority opn., ante, p. 609; Thorp, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 777.) This rule would promote predictability and reduce opportunities for litigation.
The majority refuse to apply this rule on the basis of their conclusion that Mr. Cassidy did not intend to make a gift to Ms. Cassidy of the proceeds of that policy. However, the only extrinsic evidence the majority identify to support their position is the hearsay evidence offered by Ronald Karno, Mr. Cassidy’s accountant and business manager at the time the agreement was executed. Karno testified, over objection, that Mr. Cassidy had told him on July 22, 1975, “that he wanted [Ms. Cassidy] removed as the beneficiary on all of his life insurance policies.” Karno explained that he followed these directions by executing change-of-beneficiary forms for all of Mr. Cassidy’s other life insurance policies but had inadvertently failed to change the beneficiary designation of this policy.
This evidence cannot be dispositive of the issue here—did Mr. Cassidy intend at the time of his death that Ms. Cassidy not be the beneficiary of this policy? There is nothing in the record indicating, one way or another, what Mr. Cassidy’s thoughts or intentions were as to the designation of a beneficiary after July of 1975. The record only reflects that his hearsay statement was followed by a year and a half during which no change or attempt to change the beneficiary designation was made. Both Karno and Mr. Cassidy had many months in which to discover the “error,” if such were the case, and to designate a different beneficiary. Many months passed in which Mr. Cassidy could have rethought the position reflected in his alleged hearsay statement and decided to leave the beneficiary designation unchanged.
What is most significant is that Ms. Cassidy remained the designated beneficiary. Mr. Cassidy’s executor failed to offer any evidence as to Mr. *615Cassidy’s intentions during the lengthy period between July of 1975 and Mr. Cassidy’s death in December of 1976. Without such evidence, the rule that failure to designate a new beneficiary demonstrates the policy holder’s intention that the named beneficiary receive the proceeds of the policy should apply.
As the designated beneficiary, Ms. Cassidy is entitled to the proceeds of Mr. Cassidy’s life insurance policy. She did not clearly waive her right to that expectancy by consenting to the terms of the property settlement agreement. Further, there is insufficient evidence to overcome the rule that a policy holder’s failure to change the beneficiary designation confirms the original designation. That rule should govern distribution of the policy proceeds here.
Grodin, J., concurred.