Maybe this is why they are waiting to arrest MS. From this information it seems like it is possible that if they charge him with anything less than murder he could maybe then file for the insurance. With CWW and JR they can hold them with manslaughter charges then go to a grand jury because they don't have any insurance on TS.
I do wonder if MS had been arrested at the same time as his BFF for manslaughter if the insurance company would of already had to pay out, since he would be being held on manslaughter charges and not murder charges.
This makes me go hmmmm. So maybe this is why no charges yet.
ETA: I meant to respond to post 132.
ohreally (great user name)
You have raised some interesting questions. My responses are only my opn, and I welcome our W/S legal professionals and life ins-claims professionals to offer corrections or clarifications to my post.
1. Is Slayer Rule,
"...why ...waiting to arrest MS?"
Could be, but imo doubtful.
After arrest & charges, MS/MS atty has right to demand speedy trial (IDK how many days), so FL prosecutor-team must be ready to proceed against that deadline to start trial. Premature arrest does not leave prosecutor-team enough time for trial prep. Team must have enough evidence to support charges made, whether murder or manslaughter or other.
From first doc dump, imo, there is a lot of analysis & prep for Pros-Team to do; esp w more docs anticipated. Imo, still early days for prosecutor-team, despite Lee County LE's extensive and productive investigation. JM2cts.
2. "...if they charge him with anything less than murder he could maybe then file for the insurance..."
Short answer: he
could file anyway, even if charged w murder, imo (but might be bad PR move)
Long answer: Typically a beneficiary completes LI co claim form, submits it & death ctf, by mailing to/
filing w LI co, not filing w ct.
When a benef files claim, w death ctf stating MoD =
homicide (like Dr TS, right?), LI co can/will/may contact LE where death occurred to see if benef. is a suspect or person of interest, etc.
If LE says yes, LI co does not/may not immed'ly pay out $ to that benef, could await to see if crim chgs are brought.
Then if LI co decides to pay
contingent benef, if later
primary benef is cleared (no crim chgs), LI co could be forced to pay primary benef - so could end up
paying twice.
LI co may wait until LE completes investigation and if benef is officially 'cleared,' then co should pay.
Other prob for LI co - if it pays $ to benef, who is later convicted on murder charge, co could be forced to pay $ to contingent benef too. Practically speaking, difficult or virtually impossible for co to recoup $ from primary benef. Could end up paying $ twice.
To prevent paying twice, LI may file an interpleader action* in ct, basically saying - a life ins policy on this decedent named X as primary benef and Y as contingent benef; death ctf states MoD = homicide; we/the co cannot determine who to pay, so co is tendering the funds (enclosing a check for the death benefit amt, payable to the ct) and pls, court, you figure out who should receive it. Then the benef's are notified of action and can file their responses w ct. After hearings, maybe full blown trial, judge eventually decides who sh/receive $ and releases funds/issuse ck. to that person. JM2cts.
3.
"I do wonder if MS had been arrested at the same time as his BFF for manslaughter if the insurance company would of already had to pay out, since he would be being held on manslaughter charges and not murder charges."
Not likely, imo.
LI co letter to MS in late
July stated, as MoD=homicide, & LE investigation was cont'ing, that co could not process claim yet. (see doc dump 1)
Seems imo, by then LI co's were clued in to LE looking at MS as being involved in causing TS's death.
CWW was arrested in late
August (26, 27?) so if at same time, MS had bn arrested for manslaughter, doubtful, imo, that LI co's wd have already paid $ to MS, as they were on notice about MS' poss involvement, so wd hesitate to pay MS. Keep in mind, a manslaughter
chg can later be
upgraded to a murder chg. JM2cts.
We also have to keep in mind the
standard of proof for
criminal cases is "
beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a higher standard than
civil cases, like
interpleaders, where standard of proof is by the
preponderance of evidence.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Again, welcoming our W/S legal & life ins professionals and others to chime in, to correct or clarify. Thx in adv.
______________________________________________________________________
* "
Interpleader is civil procedure that allows a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpleader
O/T: A common LI co-filed interpleader happens when a policyholder
changes the benef's and that is
disputed after death.
For ex, widowed Dad initially named (yrs ago) all three adult offspring as benef's, and then when two fall out of his favor, he filed new benef form naming only one offspring. Offspring may not be aware of existence of policy, or old or new benef designation. On his death, learning of policy, they complete & submit claim form to LI co, where employee sees conflicting claims. If the disfavored two allege that Dad was incompetent when he changed benef form, and if the three cannot agree among themselves to a settlement, LI co has no way of determining whether Dad was incompetent when he signed form changing beneficiaries. LI co may/is likely to file an interpleader action, to let the three sort it out/fight it out before a judge in ct. Interpleader is used not just for circumstances where crim charges may be filed.
** "
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases.... ""The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. The standard is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[SUP][8]}[/SUP]described it simply as "more probable than not." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof. bbm
