Why should an insurance company be forced to pay if it was based on a fraud?
“Why should an insurance company be forced to pay if it was based on a fraud?”
First the insurance company is required to prove fraud on a non-payment. So far all they could prove is the fire chief was kind of kinky in his tastes in brides. Where is the fraud? Nikki did not undergo sexual reassignment until after the “marriage” was consumated. Its pretty obvious the fire chief liked his odd little toy and was personally aware of its characteristics. The fire chief knowingly and legally identified his “odd toy” as the beneficiary. A contract was formed with the insurance company as soon as the beneficiary change was noted and the premium accepted. In no case would the insurance company run blood on the beneficiary, but they likely did on the insured. So again, where is the fraud? The husband was not injured and neither was the insurance company. Under law they pay out to Nikki.