citizen of Missouri, a jurisdiction in which the law gave her an insurable interest in Bryan's life. Id. at 590, 591. The Texas court held that Texas law would apply, since both Ruby and Bryan were living — albeit temporarily — in Texas, a Texas temporary administrator of Bryan’s estate had been appointed, the administrator had brought suit and completed proper service on Ruby, Ruby and the insurer had submitted to the Texas courts, the insurance proceeds had been paid into the court registry, and the parties had agreed to proceed to resolve the matter only in the Texas court. The court concluded that under Texas law, a former wife did not have an insurable interest in the life of her former husband. Id. at 593-94. 44 . Wal-Mart’s Reply, at 5. 45 . See generally Cheeves, 28 S.W. at 275 (<HOLDING>); Tamez, 999 S.W.2d at 18 (applying Texas
holding in 1894 that it is against the public policy of this state to allow any one who has no insurable interest to be the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of a human being holding that the primary justification of insurable interest doctrine was that the public has an interest that no inducement shall be offered to one man to take the life of another holding that insurable interest doctrine does not entitle deceased insureds estate to a reformation of the insurance contract but a constructive trust on the policy proceeds holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination