pizzaman12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,780
- Reaction score
- 14,359
It’s known as “the slayer rule.”
Key Takeaways
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-east-haddam-murder-life-insurance-20190208-euj7chgh7zbx7bpk22osuq4mum-story.html?outputType=amp
- Even the suspicion of murder can disqualify your beneficiary from receiving life insurance proceeds or any other part of your estate
- The slayer rule applies even if there's no convinction
- Each state has its own version of a slayer statute
- If your beneficiary can’t receive the death benefit, it’s paid to your other beneficiaries or your estate
I have a hard time believing they would withhold payment for this duration when AM hasn't even been listed as a POI. Compliance is a big deal in the insurance world and while I know the slayer statue is there, I'd be surprised if they withheld payment in this case. I'm wrong all the time and could certainly be wrong here as well.
This is something that stuck with me from someone on the CD/LV case and BBM
@Pipersand Insurance company lawyer here. An insurer has to pay out if they can't prove complicity. There are contractual (and often statutory) timelines to pay a claim. But trust me, that doesn't prevent an insurance company from continuing their investigation and it is possible that some of that investigation will provide evidence that not only the prosecution can use to bring these charges, but the insurance company will use to recover. Some of the insurance company's special investigators are way skilled at finding out the truth - and it is kind of fitting that fraud charges are laid here. Love it. We may never know how the critical information was found - but I trust my investigators and I suspect they were not only supportive of LE but instrumental in the charges being laid. So proud of those people who uncovered the truth - and so very thankful this is going forward! It is just and fair that they be held accountable for what they have done.