Home | Family | Family Law
Let's hope not. But if s/he is, s/he wouldn't be the 1st to attempt such a shocking crime. It's hard to understand how regularly people get away with "offing" their spouses or members of the family for the insurance money, but a quick Google search reveals that several would-be beneficiaries get caught and tossed inside the clink, goosing the rankings of CourtTV in the process. The disturbing thing regarding life insurance is that it creates a slightly undesirable circumstances through which other people stand to benefit financially out of your death. In the company of the wrong people, your life insurance policy becomes, in effect, a price on your head. Life-insurance-related murder is the most insidious type of insurance fraud, which is any form of lying-staged accidents, calculated omission, willful negligence-in order to obtain payment from an insurer. Though it must be said that the guy who burns down houses and collects from insurers is really a saint next to these two females, who preyed upon two homeless men by setting them up with insurance policies and then killing them. Perhaps the creepiest case of life-insurance-related murder: Olga Rutterschmidt and Helen Golay, both in their 70s, killed two homeless males, setting them up with insurance policies, drugging them and running them over with their car. In April 2008, Olga Rutterschmidt, 75 and Helen Golay, 77, were found guilty of murdering Kenneth McDavid and Paul Vados, two homeless men living in Los Angeles. With each murder, Rutterschmidt and Golay won the victim's trust, even putting them each up in apartments. Then they forged life insurance applications and waited (to avoid inspiring suspicion from insurers when it came time to cash in). McDavid and Vados were each found dead in alleys after being drugged and run over. Police suspicion mounted when they observed the similarities among murders: both cases gave the impression to be hit and runs, and both males were claimed by strange elderly women. When this case became public knowledge, in 2006, we followed it with morbid curiosity on the Autohomeandhealth Agent Blog. Both elderly ladies were found guilty in the spring of 2008 and are serving life sentences in federal prison. Murder and the Law According to Prof. Bill Long, a legal advisor and prolific web author, "under the common law, a person who 'feloniously and intentionally' killed another is barred from getting the proceeds of the life insurance policy on the victim." Makes sense … "But what was interesting about the CL rule," Long says on his Website, DrBillLong.com, "is that it didn't require conviction for this crime to prohibit recovery … the civil standard of liability instead of the criminal standard of guilt is what is required." In other words manslaughter-which includes willful negligence-can also bar someone from cashing in on a policy. It needn't be blatant murder. Other states have felt the necessity to get more specific by initiating "slayer statutes," which further codify bans on profiting from spousal death. Other states have insurance-related codes; Long cites this one from Texas: The interest of a recipient in a life insurance policy or contract heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the beneficiary is a principal or an accomplice in knowingly bringing about the death of the insured. When such is the case, the nearest relative of the insured shall receive said insurance. When Insurance Companies are Liable Some state courts have acknowledged that there are times when an insurer needs to be aware when something fishy is going on-when a person named as the recipient had no "insurable interest" in the insured. New York lawyer Norman L. Tolle, who represents health and life insurance carriers, and has written on the subject of insurance-related murder and the obligations insurers should be on the lookout for suspicious behavior. In this article, Tolle notes an important case, Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. Weldon, in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that insurers have a responsibility to "use sensible care not to make a situation which may prove to be a stimulus for murder." The 1957 case involved the murder of a 2-year-old by her aunt, who had been named a beneficiary on a life insurance policy for the child regardless of having no part in the child's upbringing. The father of the child sued the insurer for failing to exercise "reasonable diligence" in making sure the aunt had an insurable interest in her niece's life. Here's what the court found: It has long been recognized by this court and practically all courts in this nation that an insured is placed in a position of maximum threat where a policy of insurance is issued on his life in favor of a recipient who has no insurable relevance. . . . Where this court has found that such guidelines are unreasonably dangerous to the insured because of the risk of murder and for this reason has declared such policies void, it would be an anomaly to hold that insurance companies have no duty to use reasonable care not to create a situation which may prove to be a stimulus for murder. In this case, the company didn't even bother to notify the child's parents that the aunt was taking out an insurance policy of their daughter. The parents found out about the policy only after the death of their child. Conclusion Even with extreme vigilance on the part of insurers and the insured, there will always be stories about people killing in order to, um, expedite their beneficiary status. Where there's greed and opportunity, there are ripe conditions for insurance murder. CourtTV is counting on it.
Article Source: http://www.gambling-articles.org
For fast, free and simple Arkansas insurance quotes, fill out the insurance form AutoHomeandHealth.info NOTE- This article is intended for informational purposes only and not intended as professional advice
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
