State RegulationsAZ specificDifficulty 2/5
A Mesa business owner assigned her accident and health policy and irrevocably designated her business partner as beneficiary. She now wants to name her son instead. Under A.R.S. 20-1356, what is the result?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why D is correct
A.R.S. 20-1356 makes the insured's unilateral beneficiary change the default rule, but the change right yields when the assignment of the policy or its terms provide otherwise. An irrevocable designation tied to an assignment is exactly that exception, so the partner's consent — not the insurer's — controls whether the son can be substituted.
Why the other options are wrong
- A) Arizona law favors the insured's choice only by default; an irrevocable designation supported by an assignment overrides that default under A.R.S. 20-1356.
- B) A.R.S. 20-1355's 60-day period governs legal actions, not beneficiary changes; notice does not convert an irrevocable designation into a revocable one.
- C) The gatekeeper is the irrevocable beneficiary under the assignment and policy terms, not the insurer's consent.
Memory hook
Irrevocable means the partner, not the insurer, holds the consent right.