“We’re supposed to pay out, too? Quack!”
This could be a new method (if not already in place) for insurers of all policies to save (ie, make) money. No coverage for a severed limb unless you provide the limb and whatever (and/or whoever) cut it off. No payout for a damaged car from a hit and run unless that driver & unrepaired car can be produced.
A mother whose daughter was murdered is suing American Life Assurance of Columbus (AFLAC) because it has refused to pay the death benefit on life insurance the daughter applied for shortly before her death.
[…]
In November 2004, AFLAC denied the claim due to “insufficient proof of loss” stating that it required the name of the person charged with the homicide. In 2009, AFLAC closed the file, while the investigation into the death of Michelle Williams remains open.
Its a good thing we leave our healthcare up to such honest and trustworthy corporations.
#1 I couldn’t have said it better myself! What we need is less regulation on these nice and honest and trustworthy companies. Right, libertarians?
This isn’t atypical. A new insurance policy, followed up by a homicide. The insurance investigator makes a report, and if it’s cost effective they essentially say, “so sue us.” An insurance investigator gets paid for determining fraud, not writing checks. They claim there is a reasonable doubt that it was an arranged suicide, or homicide by the beneficiary. Those pages of fine print are a bitch.
You do all know that AFLAC is not a health insurance company, right? Otherwise, why would they ever pay when someone dies? They are not part of the public-option health insurance discussion. I’m pretty sure no universal, single-payer health care system pays money when someone dies.
I take it then the REAL issue is the Ins Co suspect FRAUD!
I don’t think most “arranged suicides” or murders would choose strangulation though.
If there was any real CONSUMER PROTECTION in our society, some government bureaucrat would get between this freedom loving citizen and the free market capitalist of choice and mediate coverage PLUS a PENALTY to encourage sanity and less FRAUD in the future????
Phydeau===I like it. I’ve heard that libertarianism, in context a fair and valid touchstone of moral and practical analysis, fails when it becomes dogma.
After reading the article, which was sparse in details, the obvious conclusion is that AFLAC isn’t the one at fault here.
It’s the Lynwood police department.
Why? Because they won’t exonerate the mother of the murder. Because the police department still has some doubts.
So AFLAC’s hands are tied. Blame the police. Big shock there!
As far as “arraigned murders” go, I’m willing to bet that the arranging part goes something like this:
“I don’t care how you do it, and I don’t want to know. Just get it done.”
Horrible and sick. There are people in this world who aren’t human beings. Monsters in flesh puppet skins.
Incompetent police and heartless corporations what a big surprise.
I had a great idea for a health insurance scheme, which could go into place after Obamacare becomes mandatory (under threat of imprisonment).
Everyone will be required to buy health insurance. And insurance companies won’t be allowed to turn anyone down. So, “my” health insurance company will make available a special, very cheap, policy with full coverage for only $499 per year. The only condition is the understanding that claims will never be paid. So you pay the $499 per year, so you have insurance and are in compliance with the law. If you get sick, you go to the hospital, and we deny the claim. It won’t be discriminatory since we will deny all claims without prejudice. If you get really sick, the smart move would be to switch to another insurance company.
#8–Ah Yea==interesting. Yes, we only have sparse info to go on SO our own personalities are allowed to project.
Strangulation is ROUGH, or am I just a pansy? The cops not clearing the Mom who is the beneficiary is significant though.
“From a societal view” since Death has been established, seems to me the defense of Fraud would have to be more than suspected or not disproven==or the Ins Co should PAY!!!!
CONTEXT is all.
Life insurance is for suckas.
The End.
“The complaint indicates that Depratto is not a suspect and that the Chicago Police Department detectives verbally informed AFLAC of this but would not put it in writing while the investigation was still open.”
http://tinyurl.com/yjjd3ps
So ask the cops to put it in writing now for petesake. Unless…
RBG
It’s not only the health insurance companies that will lose if a single payer health care is made law. Think of all the auto insurance policies that will no longer have reason to milk you for more money if your health care is guarantied by the government. Then those million dollar policies for your home owners will also cost a lot less. The entire give us your money scheme so you can pay your bills goes down the drain. Not just doctors will lose out, how about all the lawyers who get one third of every insurance claim you make today, because the insurance companies won’t pay what you agreed to when you made the purchase without being taken to court.
#11 Bobbo, I don’t have any dog in this fight, but something certainly doesn’t smell right.
Why would the police “say” that the mother isn’t a suspect yet not put it in writing? The only answer is because she is still a suspect. The logic is inescapable.
Why won’t AFLAC pay out? How can they? The mother is still a suspect, and just because the crime is horrible, that doesn’t make the mothers involvement impossible.
Family often does worse to itself than to anyone else.
#16, Ah Yea,
A lot of projection there.
Asking the mother to prove a negative is not a requirement to pay out the claim. If the Insurance Company suspects there is fraud, they will need to prove that at trial. All the mother need do is prove her daughter is dead.
Facts, not conjecture.
#13 There you are, little pedro! You’re slipping… you forgot to offer me my ration for working so hard in the global librul conspiracy. We do work so hard stealing the freedom of wingnuts like you. So I’d appreciate my ration. 😉
Fusion, as usual…
I know you’ll never get it, and here is the proof. “All the mother need do is prove her daughter is dead.”
HA!! That is so ignorant it makes me laugh out loud.
BTW, how about actually reading the filing before posting? Pay special attention to #6 and #7.
#19 AFLAC can come up with any rules it wants to in order to deny payment. Hey, let’s not pay unless someone is actually convicted of the murder! Hey, let’s not pay unless there is DNA evidence linking the convicted to the murder! They can put whatever they want in the contract, legal or not, and force someone to sue them if the time comes to collect on the policy.
If they have wording in their life insurance contracts that the beneficiary has to get a note from the police department saying they didn’t kill the policy holder, then the beneficiary has to go to court. If not, pay up.
The claim is open, but we require some additional information not related to the investigation of the death to resolve this claim.
We will work through Ms. Depratto’s attorney to obtain the information necessary to complete this process. Since litigation has been filed, we will not comment any further.
– Aflac Phyllis
#19, Ah Yea,
I read the claim. So what is your point?
Courts routinely toss out contracts with illegal and unconscionable clauses in them. Their claim that she is required to produce anything from the Chicago Police can’t be acceptable. No contract can depend upon the beneficiary forcing a third party to do something they are not legally obligated to do.
The coroner can be forced to provide a “Cause of Death” as that is their duty under the law. The police though are under no duty to provide a list of suspects until they charge someone. Even then they have to provide the information only to the defense.
Quit projecting and accept the facts. AFLAK is looking for excuses and will lose big time. Besides the insurance payout, they will end up paying for emotional stress for denying the claim outright and legal fees on top of that.
Fusion, you didn’t disappoint again!
I knew you couldn’t understand.
It is extremely obvious that the company thinks the girl was killed for the money. The situation is more than slightly suspicious and the fact that the police won’t clear the mother makes it even more sticky.
That being said I think the mother would win in court unless some evidence can be produced to cast suspicion on the mother.
#23, Ah Yea,
Understand what ??? That you have no idea what the eff you are talking about.
#24, doill,
No, there is nothing to indicate WHAT the insurance company is contemplating. They have not issued any opinion or reasons so anything said on their behalf is just conjecture, not fact.
BTW, as a correction in my #22. The sentence Their claim that she is required to produce anything from the Chicago Police can’t be acceptable. The word “acceptable” should be replaced with “enforced”. When I wrote it I was having a brain cramp and couldn’t think of the correct word.
#25 There’s little pedro, emitting his typical little blobs of verbal diarrhea. It’s good that some things in this world never change. 🙂
#23 Um, just saying “nuh-uh!” to someone doesn’t constitute a rational response. Fail.
#26 Fusion. Sometimes your responses are so hysterical because you’ve become the guy in the room that doesn’t get that the joke’s on him.
You’re so clueless that you don’t even know that you don’t know.
#30, Ah Yea,
Another failure. You can’t post anything intelligent so you just say “I won and you’re stupid, nya nya”.
How typical. Are you related to pedro?
Nobody needs life insurance, its just another financial instrument dreamed up by the industry.
Its deeply disappointing when people post an article with very little information and immediately start jumping all over everyone. And then some people in this thread that think they know the rules…or think that Aflac doesn’t want to pay. That’s not it, but, for example, if this girl’s mother is the beneficiary, and she is also suspected of murdering her daughter, then that needs to be cleared up BEFORE paying a claim, not taking it to court after the fact. There is very little information regarding this case, and I find a whole lot of judgment considering this…
Innocent until proven guilty. Now lets explore Innocent; Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless. I assume the mother is a citizen of the USA. So pay up.