How have the courts interpreted the terms of the minutes of a settlement agreement where a husband and wife's insurance policies were to be revoked?

The Respondent’s Brief argued: 28. Similarly, in Vail v. Vail Estate, a former husband and wife entered into a separation agreement, which provided that neither party had a claim against insurance policies owned by the other party. Each party was to execute such further assurances as necessary to give effect to this declaration. The former husband failed to revoke his former wife as his beneficiary before his death. Rosenberg, J., held that the former wife was entitled to collect on the policies, despite the settlement agreement. The decision turned on the fact that the relevant insurance act contained specific requirements to be complied with in order to revoke a beneficiary. These requirements were not met by either the minutes of settlement or the court decree. Further the former husband failed to change the designation, even though a number of years passed between the settlement agreement, and his death.