It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Killing for Life Insurance Usually Doesn't Pay

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Killing for Life Insurance Usually Doesn't Pay


money.msn.com

Not only is it a horrific crime, it's insurance fraud. And not being convicted (or even charged) in a death does not necessarily mean a beneficiary can collect.

...Slayer statutes have been enacted in 42 states, ...some states' statutes allow a court to consider proof other than a criminal conviction to show that a person should not receive their victim's life insurance death benefits. ...a beneficiary could avoid a murder rap but still lose out on the death benefit.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
There you have it, and according to the MSM, we all need to know about it. (Considering the coverage.)

Interesting though - the insurance industry is protected even when individuals are not. Who'da thunk it?

Just another example of the corporate right to profit overriding individual rights and freedoms.



money.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 21/2/11 by soficrow because: delete sentence



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The classic "out" clause in insurance contracts is that it is of "utmost good faith" - if you haven't told them something that might be relevant then you don't get the benefit - usually at their discretion – if you didn’t tell them about those tickets you had 30 years ago, or a burglary you had while the house was insured with another company are the usual sort of things....this just highlights that it applies up the scale too.

It’s not new.



 
0

log in

join