Posted on 04/21/2012 12:45:48 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
A widow has won a bitter victory — her husband’s death by electrocution to the genitals has to be revisited by their insurance company.
Paul Martin, 35, was found lying naked from the waist down in his upstate basement in December 2008 after hooking himself up to an electrical contraption made of purple wire with a bare loop on one end.
“The other purple wire ‘handle’ end was held in the victim’s hand, and the center ‘live’ wire appeared to be a possible switch, which was held in his other hand,” said a police report.
Widow Amanda Martin sued The Hartford life-insurance company after it denied her claim for accidental-death benefits because it said her hubby, an electrical engineer, died from “a deliberate act on his part.”
A federal judge in Rochester sided with The Hartford and pulled the plug on Amanda’s suit last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Yes the couple had sex issues... BECAUSE THE MAN HAD HYPERTENSION AND DIABETES!
Dude’s junk didn’t work. He was an engineer. He tried to make his junk work himself.
Good initiative, bad judgment. We got an app - er, PILL - for that!
Although perhaps his heart was too deemed too delicate for the little blue pills, so back to the drawing board - which I guess someone beat him to (pardon the pun), going by the items shown in post #25.
Death by stupidity, or too embarassed to order a device, but not suicide. Insurance should pay, IMO.
The insurance co. doesn't care if their narrative is plausible or not. Their goal is simply to protect the bottom line. I.e.: rather than admit the obvious: that a sexual deviant accidentally killed himself, they threw everything they had at the widow and children. From a secular perspective, such a business plan certainly makes perfect sense. I wouldn't personally want to answer for it on Judgment Day, however.
Two bits about insurance companies. The first from Katrina, where if a home had wind insurance, the company would not pay, claiming the damage was from the flooding; and if the home had flood insurance, the company would not pay, claiming the damage was from the wind.
The second was of a particularly vehement lawyer working for the insurance company of a power company. Some guy had the brilliant idea to lean his very tall, aluminum ladder against a tree branch he was cutting. When the branch was cut, it no longer supported the ladder, which fell forward into power lines.
After he had won the case, that this was not the fault of the power company, he volunteered to sue the estate of the dead man, for “misappropriation-theft of electricity”. The power company wisely told him no.
Those are two very interesting stories. I had my own personal, extremely vile experience w an ins. co. I try not to extrapolate from that one single experience to the entire industry, however. There are good and bad in every walk of life.
Did David Carradine’s life insurance policy pay out?
“Did David Carradine’s life insurance policy pay out?”
I have no idea. Most life ins. policies have a suicide clause that excludes pmt for suicide for at least a few years, some might always exclude it, I don’t know.
That makes sense to me, but even though it is gross, if you kill yourself in some stupid sex game, by accident, not on purpose, how is that different from falling off a ladder, etc.?
And wasn’t there some question that Carradine was murdered? I don’t know if that was ever a serious question or just the family being in denial.
I think the murder inquiry came from leaked details (true?untrue?) that David Carradine was tied up, unable to have choked himself to death with oxygen deprivation even if he was engaging in auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Probably paid someone (or met someone socially) who offered to play along and ran out when things required the authorities to step in.
You make a lot of sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.