“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.
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.
#18 What did I miss? Were you defending Obama without reason or out of desperation? That’s when you get your extra ration, not for being your regular loonie.
#20 There goes Fido, fencing with shadows.
#23 How can he? He’s conFused
#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.
#27 Yeap, I’m a Ying to your lunacy.
#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.