Comments on: AFLAC: Murdered Girl’s Body “insufficient proof of loss” To Pay Life Insurance Policy

By: ChristopherCorn

ChristopherCorn — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:48:15 +0000

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.

By: Angelica

Angelica — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:21:35 +0000

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…

By: Rick Cain

Rick Cain — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:10:29 +0000

Nobody needs life insurance, its just another financial instrument dreamed up by the industry.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:51:23 +0000

#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?

By: Ah_Yea

Ah_Yea — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:11:11 +0000

#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.

By: pedro

pedro — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:41:09 +0000

#27 Yeap, I’m a Ying to your lunacy.

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:13:11 +0000

#23 Um, just saying “nuh-uh!” to someone doesn’t constitute a rational response. Fail.

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:11:07 +0000

#25 There’s little pedro, emitting his typical little blobs of verbal diarrhea. It’s good that some things in this world never change.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:51:26 +0000

#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.

By: pedro

pedro — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:49:44 +0000

#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

By: deowll

deowll — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:18:16 +0000

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.

By: Ah_Yea

Ah_Yea — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:05:55 +0000

Fusion, you didn’t disappoint again!

I knew you couldn’t understand.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:18:35 +0000

#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.

By: AflacPhyllis

AflacPhyllis — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:10:41 +0000

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

By: Phydeau

Phydeau — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:48:03 +0000

#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.