Hi all. This is too general for a poll but I thought I’d get some feedback from the Dope.
Guy I know (call him Woody) is batshit crazy, confronts everyone he meets. Chip on shoulder? He has a log. Lies and steals anytime he can even when the truth would serve better. Curse at his mom who’s dying of cancer. Threatens lawsuits and more with any imagined slight. He’s been arrested many times for violent behavior and two schools his kids go to have gotten restraining orders against him. Has been this way for years and is getting worse. It has been predicted for years by more than one person that he’s going to cross the wrong guy someday and get his head torn or blown off.
Here’s the ethical situation. Another member of his family is kind, decent, hardworking, etc. but is financially struggling. Another family member has suggested that they get a life insurance policy on “Woody” and cash in when “Woody” finally pisses off the wrong person.
Aside from being able to afford the premium when struggling to pay the bills, does this seem ethical to you? The struggling family member would never hurt anyone on purpose for any reason much less “Woody” the professional asshole.
I don’t know what to think. Maybe it’s a long shot but what say you Dopers?
It’s been a while since I was in life insurance, but the law used to be that there must be an insurable interest–IOW, there must be some reason why this death would harm you (e.g., he’s your provider). Some relationships (e.g., spouse) are presumed to have an insurable interest. STOLIs circumvent this by transferring ownership later, but they’re a bit controversial.
So, assuming there’s an insurable interest, I see nothing unethical about it, unless someone tries to accelerate the payment, if you know what I mean.
Well from a strictly ethical POV I see nothing wrong with it, other than being a little far-fetched. So long as you do nothing to effect the outcome (cause him to be in a situation more likely to cause a confrontation) you’re simply making an informed financial ‘bet’, you’re not doing any kind of virtual ‘insider trading’. As for the actual legal logistics of life insurance, I have no idea…
Creepy though this is, I’m unclear on how this harms the decedent’s survivors. If the family has their own life insurance policy on the decedent, is the benefit to them somehow reduced because the Wal-Mart policy exists?
It’s creepy for sure. But is it harmful to the employee’s family or other beneficiaries? What “legal” interest would they have in this?
“Insurable interest” is to protect the insured. Liberty National v. Weldon is a well-known (in this space) case where an aunt killed her two-year-old niece after taking out insurance policies on her. The child’s parents weren’t even notified of the insurance and the company was sued for not exercising reasonable due diligence and consequently creating the circumstance where psycho aunt thought she could kill her niece for the claim money. I recall another much more recent case where two people insured a couple of homeless guys and then killed them.
So, I suppose one might argue that the company responsible for the decedent’s health care coverage benefiting from their death creates a conflict of interest. Is it possible some coverage decision was made that hastened someone’s death? Or that just in general health care coverage was restricted specifically because it not only reduced that cost but increased overall claim revenue? That doesn’t mean every death had such an implication. But some may have.
Insurance is like a casino: the way to make a profit on it is to own the casino. The insurer will try their hardest to set the insurance premium sufficiently high that you will probably pay them more in premiums than they will pay you when it comes time to collect.
In addition, beyond the need for the insurable interest to avoid insurance fraud, the insurer is going to be reluctant to pay out if the cause of death looks at all like an assassination carried out for the insurance money - which it probably will if you’re relying on someone to murder him.
I don’t know that it’s much of a stretch to be taking out insurance on him because you fear he is likely to die in some sort of messy misadventure that could cost a lot of money to clean up.
If he goes out doing something awful to some innocent, the family would have money to pay their medical bills or just some straight up compensation. Plus the costs of burying him, headstone, his debts, etc, etc!
I think you could make that case. Does that make it easier for everyone?
Back when it was called “Death Insurance” (which, like “Fire”, “Flood”, or “Earthquake” insurance, names the condition) it was a little too popular to take out a policy on the town drunk, who would then be found dead in the street.
Hence the “insurable interest” rule. How close the relationship must be, I don’t know.
How old is “Woody” and has he even been in an ER as a result of his personality? Betting on a full stop “Dead at hands of enraged party” seems like a really, really long shot.
Especially if you bet big - the insurance company just might smell “opportunist” and fight it.
Does he live in a small town in which everybody owns a shotgun?
I really don’t know so I’m asking: how does the insurance company view paying out to someone who died while committing a crime? Oh, and what level of crime would preclude payment?
I’m of the opinion that the “killers” will be the police. He has many arrests for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, threatening a police officer, resisting arrest, etc. As his behavior grows more erratic, he’s more likely to meet that “one certain cop”.
My solution is to stay just as far away as possible lest I catch his “crazy” or get hit by a stray round. As for his actual family members… I don’t know how they should handle it. I’m glad he’s not in my family.
Creepy about that “insure and kill” stuff. I could never do that and can’t understand how anyone could. But, I could hurt someone trying to hurt my loved ones.
Cold and pre-calculated? No way.
In some states suicide is a crime and many if not all insurance companies have a clause that they will not pay for suicide if committed within the first 1 or 2 years or not at all.
BTW, how do you prosecute someone for the crime of suicide? :smack:
That is not uncommon in the corporate world. An employer is financially impacted if an employee suddenly dies - lost productivity, recruiting, hiring, etc. Life insurance helps them mitigate the loss. It has long been standard for a company to insure the lives of their senior leaders, more recently the same philosophy has been “trickled down” to the common worker. I know my company has a policy on me, and they should. It would take 3-6 months to return to normal productivity for a significant part of the company, should I kick off right…
Yeah…and when Woody is found face down in the woods with some holes that nature didn’t originally give him, do you really want to be the person holding the life insurance policy on him?
The laws have changed since then. When Wal-Mart was doing it, this was considered standard practice in corporate America and it was perfectly legal.
In my opinion, it was also perfectly ethical - as long as you’re not taking steps to kill off the insured person, I see no reason not to benefit from the inevitable. I mean, are we accusing doctors of benefiting from illness, and funeral homes from benefiting from death?
The same line of reasoning applies to the OP’s situation, assuming that current laws allow it. Do your honest best to make the guy’s life long and happy, but if he’s going to pick the wrong fight, your insurance payout will not affect him in any way.
As for his actual family members… I don’t know how they should handle it. I’m glad he’s not in my family.