because it has so contracted; and it is no concern of the insurer as to who gets the proceeds, except to see that it is paid to the proper parties, under its agreement. It is simply required to perform its contract, and the law will dispose of the money according to the rights of the parties. Cheeves, 28 S.W. at 275 (emphasis added). In the century that has followed Cheeves, Texas courts have held time and again that the insurance contract is to be performed as written. E.g., Wilke v. Finn, 39 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex. Comm'n App.1931, judgm't adopted) (quoting Cheeves, 28 S.W. at 275); Stillwagoner, 979 S.W.2d at 358 (“[Although the Texas rule requires the designated beneficiary to have an insurable interest, it is not essential to the validity of the contract.”); DeLeon, 259 F.3d at 353 (<HOLDING>). 167 .In Wilke v. Finn, 39 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.
holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate 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 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 proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate holding that an insureds payments for violations of the state unfair business practices act calbus  profcode  17203 are not insurable damages under the insureds advertising injury insurance policies