Terri Schiavo, life insurance, and insurers duty to cancel if beneficiary is trying to kill insured

8 Nov AD2003 | ring-a-ding

[Ring-a-ding]

Barely touched upon is the subject of life insurance on Terri Schiavo. As CNN and other sources reported, 'Michael Schiavo has declined to comment on whether there is an outstanding life insurance policy on his wife.' http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/23/coma.woman/

Insurers have a duty to cancel policies when they have notice that a beneficiary is trying to murder the insured.

snips from http://www.rivkinradler.com/200212tolle.html The case reached the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed, finding that an insurer can be liable in tort to the insured where the beneficiary attempts to murder the insured to collect the policy proceeds and where the insurer had actual notice of the beneficiary's murderous intent.

The court concluded that this "aggregation of suspicious circumstances" imposed on the insurance company "a duty to eliminate any motive for effecting the insured's death, if not by withdrawing the coverage as void for reasons of public policy, then at least by warning the beneficiary that no proceeds would be payable if (s)he in fact murdered the insured." end snips

How does one induce the insurance industry to search their databases for life insurance on Terri Schiavo (Theresa Marie Schiavo nee Schindler) with a beneficiary list that may include her husband, her husband's attorney, or a judge? Upon notice, they have a duty to eliminate the insurance as a motive for effecting the insured death.

Any suggestions on how to notify insurers of an alleged homicidal beneficiary are welcome.

Sincerely, Ring

[Lucy Lake]

Ping.

[friendly]

As CNN and other sources reported, 'Michael Schiavo has declined to comment on whether there is an outstanding life insurance policy on his wife.'

This speaks for itself.

[Ronin]

I can't imagine that any insurance company would be willing to pay off if they manage to kill Terri. It would be beyond bizarre.

[templar]

The court concluded that this "aggregation of suspicious circumstances" imposed on the insurance company "a duty to eliminate any motive for effecting the insured's death, if not by withdrawing the coverage as void for reasons of public policy, then at least by warning the beneficiary that no proceeds would be payable if (s)he in fact murdered the insured." end snips

The key word to understand in this citation is "murdered". Obtaining a court order to remove the feding tubes is not "murder" in the legal sense (even though it might be considered so by many in the moral sense).

[Lucy Lake]

to remove the feding tubes is not "murder"

Are you saying starving someone to death is not murder, legally?

[Ring-a-ding]

The duty imposed upon the insurers is 'a duty to eliminate any motive for effecting the insured's death'. Upon notice, they are to cancel the policy, or notifiy the beneficiary that benefits will not be paid if he murders the insured.

Do you agree that if life insurance policies exist, they are 'motive for effecting the insured's death'?

[templar]

Are you saying starving someone to death is not murder, legally?

Yes. If it is done by court order it is not (legally) murder. It would be a lawfull action.

No murder charges could ever be filed in this case against anyone (Husband, doctors, judge or nursing home}.

[Ring-a-ding]

The duty imposed upon the insurers is 'a duty to eliminate any motive for effecting the insured's death'. It does not say an insurance company has a duty to prove murder.

Do you agree that if life insurance policies exist, they could be considered a 'motive for effecting the insured's death'?

[nicmarlo]

here, I found this very interesting....don't know what kind of insurance it is, but it's something:

MICHAEL SCHIAVO V. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Filling Date: 05/22/90

[supercat]

No murder charges could ever be filed in this case against anyone (Husband, doctors, judge or nursing home}.

I know such charges would be difficult, but suppose it were shown e.g. that Felos had paid Judge Greer $250,000 for his favorable rulings. In such case, would the bribe render such rulings legally void, and thus allow the attempted murder of Terri to be legally recognized as such?

[victim soul]

They pay abortionists to kill off unwanted children in the womb all the time.

[trussell]

Ping

[Ring-a-ding]

Very interesting - Terri 'collapsed' in Feb. 1990, and the petition was filed in May. Does anyone live near the Pinellas County Court House that can pull and read the file? The petition dated 5/22/90 would show the complaint, and the relationship between Michael and Prudential.

[Held_to_Ransom]

I can't imagine that any insurance company would be willing to pay off if they manage to kill Terri. It would be beyond bizarre.

It's quite possible. You can insure anything, but....

If it's an old term policy, then the insurers can challenge the pay off if he pulls the plug. They, of course, won't do this as long as she is alive. They will do it after the fact after the dummy has done the deed, but it really makes no difference to them who they pay. Term though, does run out and then they won't have to pay anyone if Terri lives long enough.

If its whole life, then it's being held as a means of passing the estate without taxes. I am not sure about this, but I suspect that's very likely as the husband/exectioner is now remarried, and thus the unlimitied marriage exemption is no longer available to him. Pre-paid whole live would satisfy this, and I doubt the insurance company would cancel it as they have nothing to lose other than the money he gave them in the first place plus interest.

Off hand, I think the idea that you can just find it is pretty much off the wall. You would have to know someone who would 'leak' it.

It's possible though that even on a prepaid policy, depending on the terms, that the company could challenge the hubby. In that case, the money would go into probate unless hubby had a secondary beneficiary on the contract.

Someone will correct me if I missed something here.

[nicmarlo]

Does anyone live near the Pinellas County Court House that can pull and read the file?

I wish I did, I'd be down there in a heartbeat!

[templar]

In such case, would the bribe render such rulings legally void, and thus allow the attempted murder of Terri to be legally recognized as such?

The problem here would be trying to get a prosecutor to persue this angle when a slam dunk for bribery is on the table.

[Held_to_Ransom]

I believe that's his lawsuit against the insurance company over the management of Terri's treatments. He won got a chunk of change. Terri also got 750 K in trust. Hubby managed the trust and could have put cash into insurance in her name with himself as the beneficiary. It's dicey to essentially be applicant's trustee and beneficiary, but then, that's what lawyers are for.

[nicmarlo]

He got money from 2 doctors he sued, quite a bit, about $250,000 from each. (And there's a 3rd doctor he sued, too, whom I'm not sure how much money he got, if any.)

[sweetliberty]

Well, given that Terri was a clerk for an insurance company, the HINO is on the board of directors for his own and his girlfriend's insurance business and she is/was well-connected in the insurance business, I think it highly probable that they have that base covered.