When I bought the life insurance policy I have today, I had to undergo blood work and a physical exam. If I had cancer the company wouldn’t have sold me the policy, right?
It’s not a technicality. If an insurance company knows that someone’s death is certain within two years, they won’t insure them, or will charge enough in premiums to make it worthwhile for them (and a bad deal for the person). If the person knowingly hides their condition, that’s insurance fraud and invalidates the policy. If it’s a high dollar insurance policy, the company probably requires a physical before they’ll commit to the policy, which would generally catch ‘dying in 2 years’ conditions.
There’s a few cases like basic employer provided insurance for a relatively small amount where you don’t have to disclose pre-existing conditions or go through a physical examination, but that’s under a specific contract where the insurance company figures getting the guaranteed payment for the whole business is worth the risk of an occasional small policy they wouldn’t normally write.
I think people are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about fraud.
I am talking about the legit person who unfortunately develops cancer within two years of the policy being issued. Please see my response to Boyo Jim three posts up.
We’re all going to die. Life insurance is just a gamble about when.
Your argument doesn’t actually have anything to do with assisted suicide. You’re arguing against the two-year exclusion in general. As it is now, it makes suicidal people wait two years, and arguably they’re hurting too, and it’s just as unfair in their case.
The point of the exclusion is fairness to others. Paying off the policies of suicidal people on a basis that is not actuarially sound raises the costs of everyone else seeking life insurance. The two-year period is an assessment on the company’s part that something may happen in the interim – the person may otherwise die of a non-covered cause, or a new treatment may be discovered that would extend the survival rate of that person’s condition by an additional five years.
Legalizing assisted suicide does nothing to alter the economic basis for the pricing of the life insurance policy, or the moral hazard of deliberately inducing an insurable event. It’s perfectly legal for me to burn a copy of Action Comics #1 in my fireplace, but my insurance company probably wouldn’t pay for its loss.
In the unlikely situation that someone gets a super-fast nonfatal cancer that was undetectable, then incurable and certainly fatal but not quickly fatal within two months, yes that’s probably the case. He would have to fulfill the terms of his contract if he wants to get the benefits of life insurance. Generally the law doesn’t try to cover really crazily specific hypotheticals, and generally doesn’t care much about individuals. It’s possible that someone would pass a law requiring a specific exemption in that case, but it seems likely to get buried as being too rare for anyone to push and too easy to argue against as fraud.
That sounds like murder to me.
There ARE exceptions to sudden unexpected, er, medical death sentences. If there is sufficient medical documentation, the state of Wisconsin will even pay out your death benefit to you before you die. I asked what happens if you suddenly recover unexpectedly and live. I was told that’s the insurer’s problem. I can’t see how killing yourself would change anything in this scenario given that they’ve already paid the benefit, but it wasn’t a question I thought to ask.
How about this one:
1997: lifelong smoker diagnosed with lung cancer. Finally stops smoking, life goes on.
- until -
2001: begins to have have very unpleasant symptoms. Diagnoses: cancer of brain Prognoses: 90 days. Outcome: dead within 90 days.
So. In 2000, patient takes out life insurance, discloses lung cancer.
Does the policy pay? BTW: this cancer is infamous for its 90 day death sentence. Once diagnosed, death really does come within 90 days.
But there are no discernible symptoms at the time the policy was written.
And: in the case of a suicide: if I were the insurer, I would certainly contest any claim based on “I am going to die the day after the 2 year mark”.
That calculation proves that the policy was taken out for the sole purpose of defrauding me.
I would certainly hope that any such ‘bad faith’* motive would render the policy void.
-
- this is the ultimate ‘Bad Faith’. You know that you will die as soon as you believe I MUST pay. I hope the Court will find me the victim of an attempt to defraud.
I am old enough to see things go in circles.
What is now called “Life Insurance” was originally sold as “Death Insurance”. It didn’t sell well until the name was changed.
Now we are to the point where we are debating exactly which deaths will or will not trigger benefit payment.
If we had kept the concept of “Death Insurance”, this discussion would have been much simpler.
“i’m dead - pay up!” is easier to understand than the current mess.
If a person discloses lung cancer in their application process, they are not going to get life insurance at all (declined) or it will have an exclusion where if they die as a result of the lung cancer it won’t pay but if they died from a car accident it would.
Even if there is no fraud (as there doesn’t seem to be in the situation you described) that won’t stop the insurance company from attempting to show that the patient lied on his application. They are in the business of making money and paying out is contrary to that interest. They’ll try to argue that the patient knew he had cancer when he signed up for the policy. Or they’ll look for any tiny excuse like if he said on the application that he’d lived at his current residence for 3 years but it was really only 2 years and 9 months then BAM they’ll call that fraud and refund all the premiums and now it doesn’t matter how he dies, they won’t cover him either way. But if you get past 24 months, the policy becomes incontestable under state law and they have to pay.
From just south of there:
From US Insurance Agents “Ask a Question” site. I’m certain all the exceptions listed up-thread apply, just that “doctor-assisted suicide” would be treated as “patient died of [insert dread disease]”.
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires that the cause of death on the death certificate be whatever undelying medical condition caused one to be eligible. So no one will have “suicide” as the cause of death when they use it. By all reports, Washington’s act was closely modelled on Oregon’s, so I’d be surprised if things are different there. How other polities do it, I don’t know.
This is true in Washington state as well. In fact, the law specifically precludes any reference to suicide, and several other related terms, from going public record related to the death. What’s mores, since the death is by statute certified as natural, there is NO WAY to actually know if the person who was qualified for the process, and filled a script for the drugs, actually went through with it, or died from their disease. All the law requires is for the prescribing physician to notify the state that they have prescribed the drugs to an unnamed someone, and the pharmacist must likewise notify when they have filled a script to an unnamed someone. After that, tracking ceases.
I see I’m late to the party.
I was going to point out to the OP that when a jurisdiction chooses to legalize terminal patient suicide or something similar, they are totally free to also alter insurance law to address this change. And they generally will.
Asking how current insurance law would apply to a future legal terminal patient assisted suicide is useful to see what new problems it will cause that the legislature ought to address. But it’s not predictive of the eventual outcome.
Interesting, so I think the agent was just dissuading me from considering it, or he was misinformed (again, the act was new at the time).
I agree. It doesn’t matter in that case if the person injecting you WITHOUT CONSENT is a doctor or a crazy person with a syringe, it’s murder and not at all comparable.
Based on what sbunny8 said in post 11 and 31, it sounds like the ICs have very wide discretion to deny coverage in the first 2 years, so much so that simply dying “of a terminal illness”, which you would have to have in order to qualify for DWD and which by law would be listed as the cause of death on your death certificate, would be in and of itself grounds for them to deny (or at least challenge) coverage. The DWD process should not, and by law cannot, have any overt influence. See http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245.170.
I’m guessing it would be the fact that you qualified to use the act, rather than the possibility that you may have used it, that would be the thing on which they would base their challenge.
(Apologies for going off topic, but I have been in some discussions with IC adjusters/investigators wherein I’ve been asked to reconsider a cause or manner of death (never involving DWD in any way). I’m always willing to consider new information, but when it becomes apparent that the only “new information” they are offering is that they would like me to change my opinion so that they can deny paying out on a policy, the conversation ends. I’ve been told scuttlebutt-wise that the adjuster, if successful in getting a payout denied, is often rewarded with a fraction of the denied claim, as a sort of commission. Anyone know if that’s true?)
I don’t think the idea was that the doctor is injecting the patient without consent, but rather that the doctor is administering the lethal drugs because the patient is unable to do so for themselves. (Most people would probably have trouble setting up an IV drip for themselves, for instance.) Or, perhaps, the doctor is setting everything up so that all the patient has to do is some simple action like press a button or punch in a code or something, precisely so the final decision can be left up to the patient.
It sounds like the places that pass these laws also consider the life insurance question, or at least it looks like they probably do. Do we have any information on whether this situation (life insurance purchased less than two years ago, then the insured finds out about a terminal illness and commits suicide) has actually occurred? It sounds like the data may simply not be available because the whole “suicide” part is supposed to be kept completely private…
An interesting related situation is if the situation is one that will NOT be immediately terminal. Let’s say you’re diagnosed with Huntingdon’s, or with ALS, or whatever. Any of those could qualify under the “grievous and irremediable medical condition” which has caused “intolerable suffering” as noted in the OP - but could allow you to live for years or decades.
The insurer would obviously be hoping you’d quit paying your premiums before you died - but if you move up your death date voluntarily, I could see them fighting the payout tooth and nail.
And what about someone who goes into a chronic vegetative state, and whose family opts to turn off life support - OK, that one isn’t suicide per se, but if I’m flatlining, and my husband (beneficiary of my life insurance) opts to have the plug pulled, can he get the payout?