Content Warning: While this is, in fact, a post about a specific type of life insurance claim, it refers to a rather unsettling (and adult-themed) "proximate cause."
Accidental Death policies are something of an enigma to me: the idea that one needs (more) life insurance only if death occurs by accident, as opposed to illness, seems absurd. You either need the coverage or you don't; the bank doesn't care if you die of cancer or gun-shot, it wants its money. Now.
We've touched on this subject before, but a recent ruling by a circuit court opens up a rather, um, unusual can of worms:
"A widow has won a bitter victory — her husband’s death by electrocution to the genitals has to be revisited by their insurance company."
Apparently, the late Mr Martin chose to engage in a "specialty" sexual practice, and was electrocuted while so engaged. The Hartford Life insurance company, after investigating the claim, determined that, even though he most likely didn't set out to kill himself, the activity was such that he should have been aware of the possibility (the fact that he was an electrical engineer by trade may have been a clue).
The court, though, made an interesting point:
"The Hartford’s stance “would exclude injuries resulting from merely negligent acts, even if the insured did not intend to injure himself."
A fair cop, really. What if he'd been bungee jumping or skydiving? The principle that these are highly dangerous activities would let the carrier off the hook, right? Heck, driving or flying can be characterized as "dangerous," as well; where does The Hartford get to draw the line?
I'm still not a fan of these kinds of policies, but I have to side with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals here.
Accidental Death policies are something of an enigma to me: the idea that one needs (more) life insurance only if death occurs by accident, as opposed to illness, seems absurd. You either need the coverage or you don't; the bank doesn't care if you die of cancer or gun-shot, it wants its money. Now.
We've touched on this subject before, but a recent ruling by a circuit court opens up a rather, um, unusual can of worms:
"A widow has won a bitter victory — her husband’s death by electrocution to the genitals has to be revisited by their insurance company."
Apparently, the late Mr Martin chose to engage in a "specialty" sexual practice, and was electrocuted while so engaged. The Hartford Life insurance company, after investigating the claim, determined that, even though he most likely didn't set out to kill himself, the activity was such that he should have been aware of the possibility (the fact that he was an electrical engineer by trade may have been a clue).
The court, though, made an interesting point:
"The Hartford’s stance “would exclude injuries resulting from merely negligent acts, even if the insured did not intend to injure himself."
A fair cop, really. What if he'd been bungee jumping or skydiving? The principle that these are highly dangerous activities would let the carrier off the hook, right? Heck, driving or flying can be characterized as "dangerous," as well; where does The Hartford get to draw the line?
I'm still not a fan of these kinds of policies, but I have to side with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals here.
0 nhận xét:
Post a Comment