Final answer:
The given statement "When Jack and Jill divorced, the court ordered that Jack name Jill beneficiary of his insurance. He may not change this, even if he remarries unless Jill gives her permission" is true
Step-by-step explanation:
When Jack and Jill divorced, and the court ordered that Jack name Jill as the beneficiary of his insurance, Jill indeed became the mandated beneficiary of that policy. According to the stipulation of their divorce decree, Jack cannot change the beneficiary unless Jill gives her permission.
This situation reflects on how legal agreements and court orders can designate rights and privileges regarding estate planning and beneficiary designations, similar to the historical case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson, where rights and recognitions of relationships played a pivotal role.
The example of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson shows the significance of naming a beneficiary and the legal disputes that can arise without a legally recognized marriage or clear legal designations for partners. Moreover, it showcases the impact of guardianship and beneficiary rights when incapacitation or other life events occur.
Estate law, as explained through the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and modern intestacy laws, indicates that without a will or beneficiary designation, the courts step in to distribute assets based on state laws. Thus, making clear beneficiary designations as Jack did for Jill, protects the intended party's rights to assets, even in cases of future personal changes such as remarriage, if legally stipulated as in Jack and Jill's case.