ARUBA - Robyn Gardner, 35, Maryland woman missing in Aruba, 2 Aug 2011 - #11

[Tugela]

Common sense dictates that someone must have an interest (relationship, economics) when taking out insurance on another party otherwise we could all go around killing eachother off after paying a one-time fee for insurance.
GG will never get paid on this policy, moo.:floorlaugh:

Yes, but she was aware that the policy had been taken out and initialed him as the beneficiary. So, unless they can show that was fraudulent, it is a valid policy unless the contract specifically states that the beneficiary has to have a specific relationship. Of course they are going to make arguments so they don't have to pay out (that is what an insurance company will do - they want you to pay them, not the other way around), but basically they are stalling, probably in the hopes of a settlement or that LE will come up with something that will let them off the hook. They can't make up new rules after the fact.

But without evidence of wrongdoing they are eventually going to be compelled to pay.

 

[Sapphire]

Common sense dictates that someone must have an interest (relationship, economics) when taking out insurance on another party otherwise we could all go around killing eachother off after paying a one-time fee for insurance.
GG will never get paid on this policy, moo.:floorlaugh:

I agree and according to the court document Gary and Robyn did not have this type of relationship as confirmed by Gary's comments he made on TV.

 

[Sapphire]

Yes, but she was aware that the policy had been taken out and initialed him as the beneficiary. So, unless they can show that was fraudulent, it is a valid policy unless the contract specifically states that the beneficiary has to have a specific relationship. Of course they are going to make arguments so they don't have to pay out (that is what an insurance company will do - they want you to pay them, not the other way around), but basically they are stalling, probably in the hopes of a settlement or that LE will come up with something that will let them off the hook. They can't make up new rules after the fact.

But without evidence of wrongdoing they are eventually going to be compelled to pay.

How do we know Robyn really initialed that policy? The printed R in the initialized area looks different from the printed R on the signature line where she printed her name. A signature comparison is necessary.

Also, their relationship is listed as "partner.". According to the court document, their relationship does not meet the Terms of the Insurance Company's definition of domestic partner.

After reading the court document, I will be surprised if he will be paid. JMO

 

[neesaki]

GG claimed on the form that Robyn was his "partner". If he lied on the form, which is what it appears and what the insurance company is claiming, then he committed fraud when he completed the form and took out the policy then tried to collect.
He also basically admits that he doesn't know that she is dead, according to his own ambiguous statements that she just "disappeared" when they were in the water and he doesn't know what happened to her. IIRC, in his last interview he even said she may have been taken by traffickers while she was in the water and that he felt like he would "see her again"?
What a piece of work he is, to try to convince everyone he's innocent of murder, that Robyn could be alive. Then to claim she's without a doubt deceased so he can collect 3.5 million. :tsktsk:
Not that this is any surprise, we all knew where this was headed.

BTW, Does anyone know if insurance fraud could be a criminal indictable offense?

 

[neesaki]

Generally speaking, the beneficiary must have an insurable interest in the insured person. In other words, the person or people receiving the proceeds must have a financial incentive for the insured person to remain alive.

I don't think this would apply. What would be GG's financial incentive for Robyn to stay alive?

Common beneficiaries include the spouse or children of the insured person, or another family member. People with whom there is an established relationship, such as an unmarried partner or close family friend, are also acceptable.

I don't really think this would either, they did not have what has been described as an "established" relationship, imo. But what do you think?

The primary criteria for whoever is listed as a beneficiary is having an insurable interest. It is the prerogative of the issuing insurance company to evaluate the insurable interest of the listed beneficiary and to reject that choice if necessary. This is done primarily to avoid conflicts of interest; the insured person should be more valuable to the beneficiary alive than dead.

So is / was Robyn more valuable alive or dead to GG ?

http://www.ehow.com/about_6535683_beneficiaries-life-insurance-policy.html

 

[Blueskies]

Am I the only one here that didn't know that Baez has a mail order bride from Colombia? I just found out from reading on another thread from a post by Jersey*Girl. So is it just coincidence that JB ended up representing GG, who met Robyn on adultfriendfinder.com and also allegedly has buddies in the mail order bride business? Kinda interesting, imo.

I did find this link though it's not MSM:

YEs thats extremely interesting! As I mentioned before there was a fellow that was extremely suspicious that owns these businesses from Robyns little home town that took great interest in Robyns dissapearance. Theres just way too many coincidences involving GG and these other two men.

 

[LambChop]

The main objective of purchasing insurance on a person is to cover a financial loss in the event of that person's death, such as a partner who depends partly or wholly on the income of the deceased or that the loss is one of companionship. You've suffered a loss and the insurance coverage protects you from that loss. However GG had no expectations of ever losing any income from RG nor was she his companion. They were never a couple, just traveling together. She even paid for her own ticket. There was never any expectation of a financial loss for GG....ever. He will have a hard time proving he did not take that policy out JUST for financial gain and took those steps to insure he would be able to collect. His first thought after she went missing was to notify the insurance company. Who does that???? He wasn't even sure she was dead yet he tells police "she must be dead by now" and then calls AmEx the very next day. AmEx is a big company and I'm sure they have a fraud division who could be investigating as we speak if they haven't already done so. I don't think AmEx is looking to pay him off because it would be an easy win for them in court. GG does not present well in public. jmo

 

[neesaki]

So is this what they mean by a :coldcase:?

 

[neesaki]

We just can not forget about Robyn. Cold cases are just not acceptable to me when there is a prime suspect as is so obvious in this case. In Robyn's case, the one and only prime suspect, Gary Giordano, had taken out a highly suspect and questionable 1.5 million dollar insurance policy on Robyn, then followed that up with taking her to Aruba where she very conveniently "disappeared" in the water while they were "snorkeling"... at sunset, in rough waters, and in an unsafe area. Then there were her hair extensions and the fact that she didn't like to go in the ocean above her waist anyway. So does his story wash with me? Nah, not quite.

Of course even I realize if she had been drugged, she might could have been convinced, coerced, to do anything. Absolutely. And remember, btw, they had been reportedly drinking vodka and according to Giordano, Robyn had 'taken' a 'sleeping pill'. In the middle of the day, no less. So could that possibly be just another luck of the draw for Mr. GG? Or did he have a hand in that as well?

Too many inconsistencies, too many contradictions, too many lies on the part of this man, Giordano. To this day, Giordano is still the only suspect in this case. His entire story of their "snorkeling" event is entirely unbelievable, imo, and reeks of nothing but lies and falsehoods.
And yes, I am one who firmly believes that Gary Giordano knows exactly what happened to Robyn and is responsible for what happened to her, and/or knows where Robyn is. The fact is that Robyn disappeared under highly questionable circumstances, with reports by witnesses that disproved Giordano's claims that they ever went snorkeling at all. Taken all together, why is all of this in itself not enough to try, indict, and possibly convict him for something.

Then again, my main question is what, if anything, is Aruba LE doing to solve this case? At this point, it sadly seems to be nothing.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-missing-woman/story?id=14350220#.UITbxMWuliU

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20523225,00.html

 

[neesaki]

Am now completely rethinking this case after being hit by an eye-opening dose of reality in the Linda Reed case. Which is just saying that I am totally on the :fence: as to what to believe about Robyn's disappearance. I still am of the opinion that whatever it was, GG knows and was part of whatever happened. And that whatever it was, it had everything to do with an expected financial gain from the insurance policy, again JMO. I would think it's not too far fetched to believe that maybe LE has some of these suspicions as well. That is, that it is not impossible that Robyn actually chose to disappear. I think it would be safe to say that they cannot entirely rule out that possibility, as there was never evidence disclosed, at least to us of her drowning or death.

Whether Robyn was in fact a murder victim or a victim of human trafficking, I just wish we knew. For myself, I just can't be sure anymore, but will continue to give her some benefit of the doubt, just not absolute. I guess I've become less trusting and more disillusioned, whether that's a good thing or a bad one I can't say.
Either way, her case seems to have gone cold and may unfortunately stay that way. JMHO

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Doesn't GG have to just wait 7 years for RG to be declared legally dead, and then he will collect even without a body? I think they have to pay out in that instance because whether or not they were "partners" is not the question. The question is did something happen to RG while under this insurance policy that they both signed, making it a legal claim. It would seem to me AmEx allowed the policy at the time, the signatures were legal, and if or until they find Robyn or her body, in 7 years she will be declared legally dead and GG should be able to collect. AmEX took his money and at that point entered into a contract with him.

Unless Robyn is found dead or alive , I am afraid this is what will happen. Tell me I am wrong.

 

[neesaki]

Doesn't GG have to just wait 7 years for RG to be declared legally dead, and then he will collect even without a body? I think they have to pay out in that instance because whether or not they were "partners" is not the question. The question is did something happen to RG while under this insurance policy that they both signed, making it a legal claim. It would seem to me AmEx allowed the policy at the time, the signatures were legal, and if or until they find Robyn or her body, in 7 years she will be declared legally dead and GG should be able to collect. AmEX took his money and at that point entered into a contract with him.

Unless Robyn is found dead or alive , I am afraid this is what will happen. Tell me I am wrong.

IJMO that Giordano fraudulently claimed that they were "partners" when they really were not. He admitted himself that they were just friends. Not married, not living together, no real relationship that would be defined as "partners". The definition of this is spelled out in the claim.

The insurance company has no way of knowing otherwise at the time the policy is taken out. They have to trust that the insured is being truthful at that time. I mean, it's not like a health insurance policy where they have to complete a physical in order to get coverage. And they don't investigate them, they just take their word for it. When GG signed the policy it became a binding contract. If he lied, then the policy not only becomes null and void, it becomes an act of fraud. At least that's how I understand it. Similar to someone who burns down their own house for the insurance money, then claims that it burned down accidentally. Well, if the insurance company finds that it was arson, the insurance won't pay.

So then, when GG filed the claim, that entitles the insurance company to investigate and determine if it is in fact a legitimate claim, versus a fraudulent one. That's when they uncover all the facts and learn whether they were in fact "partners" or not. At least that is how I understand it.

Also, there is no proof, no evidence, none whatsoever, that Robyn is even deceased. There are various ways a person can disappear, or be disappeared, (such as trafficked). Doesn't mean they are dead.
And in this case, not only is there no body, there is not even one iota of evidence to support GG's claim that they went snorkeling, and even less evidence that Robyn drowned.
All JMO of course. Great to see you R.U !!! :seeya:

 

[Dushi]

Personally, I feel GGs own remarks about drugs and alcohol may enter into the insurance decision
That , being backed up by a waiter saying RG was "woozy"

 

[Dushi]

Doesn't GG have to just wait 7 years for RG to be declared legally dead, and then he will collect even without a body? I think they have to pay out in that instance because whether or not they were "partners" is not the question. The question is did something happen to RG while under this insurance policy that they both signed, making it a legal claim. It would seem to me AmEx allowed the policy at the time, the signatures were legal, and if or until they find Robyn or her body, in 7 years she will be declared legally dead and GG should be able to collect. AmEX took his money and at that point entered into a contract with him.

Unless Robyn is found dead or alive , I am afraid this is what will happen. Tell me I am wrong.

Nice to :seeya:

 

[katydid23]

He admitted they were drinking and that she took some pills. Then he took her scuba diving in the deep water. So that should nullify the Insurance Contract, imo.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Nice to :seeya:

All JMO of course. Great to see you R.U !!! :seeya:

:blushing:....and it is SO nice to know you both feel that way. I still read here just don't have much to say. Do think you both make good points.
Just wish there was some news on this case, seems like Aruba has dropped the ball and have moved on.

 

[Dushi]

:blushing:....and it is SO nice to know you both feel that way. I still read here just don't have much to say. Do think you both make good points.
Just wish there was some news on this case, seems like Aruba has dropped the ball and have moved on.

Perhaps they have dropped the ball
Perhaps they have no where to go

I expect that there is no more evidence now than there was when Good old gary was locked up

And we know they didn't have enough to hold him any longer

Truthfully, I have no idea what happened to RG, but I do think GG has the answers

Like Neesaki, I have been fooled so I know it can happen again!!!

 

[Niner]

We just can not forget about Robyn. Cold cases are just not acceptable to me when there is a prime suspect as is so obvious in this case. In Robyn's case, the one and only prime suspect, Gary Giordano, had taken out a highly suspect and questionable 1.5 million dollar insurance policy on Robyn, then followed that up with taking her to Aruba where she very conveniently "disappeared" in the water while they were "snorkeling"... at sunset, in rough waters, and in an unsafe area. Then there were her hair extensions and the fact that she didn't like to go in the ocean above her waist anyway. So does his story wash with me? Nah, not quite.

Of course even I realize if she had been drugged, she might could have been convinced, coerced, to do anything. Absolutely. And remember, btw, they had been reportedly drinking vodka and according to Giordano, Robyn had 'taken' a 'sleeping pill'. In the middle of the day, no less. So could that possibly be just another luck of the draw for Mr. GG? Or did he have a hand in that as well?

Too many inconsistencies, too many contradictions, too many lies on the part of this man, Giordano. To this day, Giordano is still the only suspect in this case. His entire story of their "snorkeling" event is entirely unbelievable, imo, and reeks of nothing but lies and falsehoods.
And yes, I am one who firmly believes that Gary Giordano knows exactly what happened to Robyn and is responsible for what happened to her, and/or knows where Robyn is. The fact is that Robyn disappeared under highly questionable circumstances, with reports by witnesses that disproved Giordano's claims that they ever went snorkeling at all. Taken all together, why is all of this in itself not enough to try, indict, and possibly convict him for something.

Then again, my main question is what, if anything, is Aruba LE doing to solve this case? At this point, it sadly seems to be nothing.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-missing-woman/story?id=14350220#.UITbxMWuliU

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20523225,00.html

:goodpost: Totally agree with what you said [b[neesaki[/b]. Unfortunately, there is nothing new and GG lives on with his life....


respectfully snipped...

Am now completely rethinking this case after being hit by an eye-opening dose of reality in the Linda Reed case.

:waitasec: Haven't heard of this case - no time to look - can you give a quick synopse?? TIA! :seeya:

 

[neesaki]

:goodpost: Totally agree with what you said [b[neesaki[/b]. Unfortunately, there is nothing new and GG lives on with his life....


respectfully snipped...


:waitasec: Haven't heard of this case - no time to look - can you give a quick synopse?? TIA! :seeya:

Mrs. Reed disappeared under suspicious circumstances leaving her family and most of us believing she was a victim of foul play. We just recently learned she had faked her own disappearance, all the while alive and well living in another state. She was arrested for embezzlement and is in jail. :tsktsk:

It was definitely an eye opener for most of us following the case. Just gives me pause, and serves as a reminder in cases like this when we have no absolute proof that someone has been a victim, especially when there is money involved.

Here is the link to the WS thread if you're interested. :seeya:
Found Alive MS - Linda Reed, 65, Copiah County, Believed Abducted 30 April 2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Dushi]

Mrs. Reed disappeared under suspicious circumstances leaving her family and most of us believing she was a victim of foul play. We just recently learned she had faked her own disappearance, all the while alive and well living in another state. She was arrested for embezzlement and is in jail. :tsktsk:

It was definitely an eye opener for most of us following the case. Just gives me pause, and serves as a reminder in cases like this when we have no absolute proof that someone has been a victim, especially when there is money involved.

Here is the link to the WS thread if you're interested. :seeya:
Found Alive MS - Linda Reed, 65, Copiah County, Believed Abducted 30 April 2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I too, was convinced Mrs reed was a victim of foul play
It has shown me how wrong I can be!!!

I will try to keep a very open mind on any case I follow because this one proved that things are not always as they appear

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... well, its not always a duck :blushing: