blogs.houstonpress.com— Should the widow of a man who was killed while driving drunk be entitled to life insurance benefits? Cigna doesn't think so, and has termed his death "intentionally self-inflicted."
Dec 3, 2009View in Crawl 4
Just an assumption on my part, but it looks pretty basic. Most insurance companies give themself pretty iron clad way out, as most are written by lawers, I would think this is pretty common.It's why all lawers tell you to always read Before sighning.
"a drunk driver who kills someone OUGHT to be charged with 1st degree murder. "And if they're not drunk? A non-drunk person who turns your Mother into a grease stain still made the decision to get behind the wheel, just like a drunk, can't drive worth a s**t, just like a drunk, and will be sorry for the rest of their days, just like a drunk.So, the difference between 5 to 10 and 25 to Life, for you, comes down to having one drink? (that's all it takes for Mr. Average to blow .08)f**k. You.
If he was killed BY carrying confetti (somehow) where that's illegal, then yes, it should be grounds for refusal to pay. If the policy-holder's criminal activity is directly responsible for their own death, the insurance company should not have to pay. If the criminal activity is not a causal factor in the death, the insurance company should pay. Having some paper chads in your hand doesn't cause the roof to fall in on you...............................The lack of logical analysis and critical thinking around here never ceases to amaze me.
Along these lines you could argue the same for anyone who dies by: Skydiving, bungie-jumping, alligator wrestling,noodling, swimming, being in an automobile etc etc. These are all things more dangerous than sitting in a bomb shelter eating only a healthy balanced diet that has been irradiated to kill any germs and bacteria and since there's only like 3 people in the world that are doing just that, this must mean that everyone else in the world is trying to kill themselves and won't get their life insurance money.
I can, it sends a message that the problem is the entire family's. Now, if she can prove she was unaware of his drinking/driving problem, that's another matter.More importantly, it helps to send a message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. We need more heavy-handed policies like this one. Besides, they'll often deny coverage if a patient dies as a result of cirrhosis caused by drinking, how is this any different? And everyone calls alcoholism a disease these days, bang, pre-existing condition :-)
Do you have any idea how easy it is to be legally drunk. For some it is as easy as 3 drinks. Seeing all of the "pot is good for you" articles here on DIGG, I realize that most of you probably smell like a Bob Marley air freshener. THC stays in your blood for 6 weeks, should those with THC in their system also be considered "intoxicated"?
As far as if this was his first DUI or not, I'll agree that it probably wasn't his first time, but again I don't think that past behavior should be taken into consideration here, except that perhaps if he'd done it many times (like say a few dozen) at some point it becomes not crazy to assume that a long success record demonstrates that he did not find it dangerous. Think about if you'd ridden a bicycle on a busy street 50 times and never been hit by a car, you'd eventually figure that since you had survived before you'll survive your 51st. However, again, I'll readily admit that he probably had driven drunk before, and it also probably wasn't dozens of times, and he should have known that there's always a very high risk of injury to himself, other people, property, or being caught by police.Secondly, I still don't understand how this "[punishes] the guy who took out the policy". I'm repeating myself, but he's dead. Giving her the money doesn't benefit him, and taking it away from her doesn't hurt him either. Nothing that happens from this point on has any affect on him. However, it does impact his wife. It's a life insurance policy, and so the policy holder by definition never get's that money; just the beneficiary. But anyways, as you point out, they are allowed to deny payment to the family of a man who shoots himself. The reason for this, of course, is to prevent fraud. Undoubtedly, most suicides happen because a person is depressed, not because they want to sacrifice themselves to give their family some money. But fraud determent is the only reason why they deny payment. I've never heard though, of insurance companies claiming that reckless actions is the same as suicide. I find it highly unlikely he was drunk driving in the hopes of getting money for his wife, just as I doubt that he wished to die or hurt himself or his car at all, making it stupidity resulting in an accident.Also, her situation I assume is not common. I would be fine with the company putting in his contract that it's void if the death happens while committing a crime, but they need to state that. If they're defining stupidly recklessness as being the equivalent as suicide, and that denial of payment justified on the grounds of fraud prevention, I find that to be an extreme stretch. I define suicide as being the intentional killing of one's self, and I still see this as a stupid accident. I don't doubt that he should have known better, but plenty of people die doing stupid things every year. But if you're going to equate high risk with intentional death, I guess then the question becomes how risky does something have to be for it to be called suicide? Had he died while driving sober but very fast, or while talking on the phone, or changing lanes without signaling/looking, would you still call it suicide? What if he died of a heart attack, and it turns out that he was extremely overweight and ate a diet that anyone could tell was dangerous? I doubt that insurance companies do, and I think they picked her because of the stigma and embarrassment associated with drunk driving, figuring that she's not going to fight them on it. And don't get me wrong, I think it's great to discourage in any way what-so-ever DUI. But at some point the list of risky actions could become so long that there would be no point to life insurance in the first place. It doesn't exist so as to pay out only to those who die of old age; rather, it's there mostly to alleviate the financial damage by losing a human life in the family, and help cover their debt, and would most crucially be needed when a younger person dies. In the end, if they didn't have the foresight to specify in their policy that death during illegal or otherwise stupid acts will void the agreement, then they should have to pay.
flakmanDec 4, 2009
Just an assumption on my part, but it looks pretty basic. Most insurance companies give themself pretty iron clad way out, as most are written by lawers, I would think this is pretty common.It's why all lawers tell you to always read Before sighning.
rushikuDec 5, 2009
"a drunk driver who kills someone OUGHT to be charged with 1st degree murder. "And if they're not drunk? A non-drunk person who turns your Mother into a grease stain still made the decision to get behind the wheel, just like a drunk, can't drive worth a s**t, just like a drunk, and will be sorry for the rest of their days, just like a drunk.So, the difference between 5 to 10 and 25 to Life, for you, comes down to having one drink? (that's all it takes for Mr. Average to blow .08)f**k. You.
roborayDec 5, 2009
If he was killed BY carrying confetti (somehow) where that's illegal, then yes, it should be grounds for refusal to pay. If the policy-holder's criminal activity is directly responsible for their own death, the insurance company should not have to pay. If the criminal activity is not a causal factor in the death, the insurance company should pay. Having some paper chads in your hand doesn't cause the roof to fall in on you...............................The lack of logical analysis and critical thinking around here never ceases to amaze me.
animan351Dec 5, 2009
Along these lines you could argue the same for anyone who dies by: Skydiving, bungie-jumping, alligator wrestling,noodling, swimming, being in an automobile etc etc. These are all things more dangerous than sitting in a bomb shelter eating only a healthy balanced diet that has been irradiated to kill any germs and bacteria and since there's only like 3 people in the world that are doing just that, this must mean that everyone else in the world is trying to kill themselves and won't get their life insurance money.
charrionDec 5, 2009
I can, it sends a message that the problem is the entire family's. Now, if she can prove she was unaware of his drinking/driving problem, that's another matter.More importantly, it helps to send a message that drinking and driving will not be tolerated. We need more heavy-handed policies like this one. Besides, they'll often deny coverage if a patient dies as a result of cirrhosis caused by drinking, how is this any different? And everyone calls alcoholism a disease these days, bang, pre-existing condition :-)
boner11Dec 5, 2009
It's called a Public Adjuster. f**king hire one!
boner11Dec 5, 2009
Do you have any idea how easy it is to be legally drunk. For some it is as easy as 3 drinks. Seeing all of the "pot is good for you" articles here on DIGG, I realize that most of you probably smell like a Bob Marley air freshener. THC stays in your blood for 6 weeks, should those with THC in their system also be considered "intoxicated"?
sibosDec 5, 2009
As far as if this was his first DUI or not, I'll agree that it probably wasn't his first time, but again I don't think that past behavior should be taken into consideration here, except that perhaps if he'd done it many times (like say a few dozen) at some point it becomes not crazy to assume that a long success record demonstrates that he did not find it dangerous. Think about if you'd ridden a bicycle on a busy street 50 times and never been hit by a car, you'd eventually figure that since you had survived before you'll survive your 51st. However, again, I'll readily admit that he probably had driven drunk before, and it also probably wasn't dozens of times, and he should have known that there's always a very high risk of injury to himself, other people, property, or being caught by police.Secondly, I still don't understand how this "[punishes] the guy who took out the policy". I'm repeating myself, but he's dead. Giving her the money doesn't benefit him, and taking it away from her doesn't hurt him either. Nothing that happens from this point on has any affect on him. However, it does impact his wife. It's a life insurance policy, and so the policy holder by definition never get's that money; just the beneficiary. But anyways, as you point out, they are allowed to deny payment to the family of a man who shoots himself. The reason for this, of course, is to prevent fraud. Undoubtedly, most suicides happen because a person is depressed, not because they want to sacrifice themselves to give their family some money. But fraud determent is the only reason why they deny payment. I've never heard though, of insurance companies claiming that reckless actions is the same as suicide. I find it highly unlikely he was drunk driving in the hopes of getting money for his wife, just as I doubt that he wished to die or hurt himself or his car at all, making it stupidity resulting in an accident.Also, her situation I assume is not common. I would be fine with the company putting in his contract that it's void if the death happens while committing a crime, but they need to state that. If they're defining stupidly recklessness as being the equivalent as suicide, and that denial of payment justified on the grounds of fraud prevention, I find that to be an extreme stretch. I define suicide as being the intentional killing of one's self, and I still see this as a stupid accident. I don't doubt that he should have known better, but plenty of people die doing stupid things every year. But if you're going to equate high risk with intentional death, I guess then the question becomes how risky does something have to be for it to be called suicide? Had he died while driving sober but very fast, or while talking on the phone, or changing lanes without signaling/looking, would you still call it suicide? What if he died of a heart attack, and it turns out that he was extremely overweight and ate a diet that anyone could tell was dangerous? I doubt that insurance companies do, and I think they picked her because of the stigma and embarrassment associated with drunk driving, figuring that she's not going to fight them on it. And don't get me wrong, I think it's great to discourage in any way what-so-ever DUI. But at some point the list of risky actions could become so long that there would be no point to life insurance in the first place. It doesn't exist so as to pay out only to those who die of old age; rather, it's there mostly to alleviate the financial damage by losing a human life in the family, and help cover their debt, and would most crucially be needed when a younger person dies. In the end, if they didn't have the foresight to specify in their policy that death during illegal or otherwise stupid acts will void the agreement, then they should have to pay.