My girlfriend’s husband recently died in a tragic highway accident. It was no-one’s fault, just one of those flukey things. As I have the story, the police at the scene informed his wife that they must perform an autopsy on her husband because the accident occured on a public highway. When they did so they probably discovered that he was an habitual pot smoker. Someone then told her that this information could eliminate the necessity of their life insurance company to pay. Does anyone know if this is true? Also, doesn’t any wife have the right to deny her husband an autopsy, say, out of religious or other beliefs?
I’m open to correction, but I don’t think they would have to perform a full autopsy to establish habitual (or, at any rate, recent) cannabis use; a simple blood test would suffice. And in many places bloods are routinely taken from traffic accident victims, mainly to establish if alcohol was involved.
The effect on his life insurance would depend on the wording of the policy. If the tests showed not simply that he was a cannabis user but that he was under the influence at the time of the accident and if the circumstances showed that this would or might have been a significant factor in his death (e.g. if he were driving a car while high) and if the insurance policy had an exclusion for death in these circumstances, then I guess there would be a problem. But I would be a bit surprised if the policy contained a general exclusion such that it wouldn’t pay out on th death of a cannabis user, regardless of any link between the cannabis use and the death.
I’m not sure if this makes a difference or not, but even if they can tell that he smoke pot, they will not be able to tell if he was high at the time of the accident or not. (As opposed to, being able to tell if he was drunk at the time of the accident).
Hmm…I had an insurance salesman tell me (at the time he sold me my policy) that if any traces of marijuana showed in the blood test the policy would be denied. So it may figure that, had you produced a clean blood sample (not hard, just behave yourself for at least 30 days) in order to obtain coverage, said coverage could be denied, as you failed to live up to your end of the contract.
YMMV.
Well, this is rather disheartening news, but I doubt very much if he would have opted for a policy that specified non-payment in the event of marijuana use. How can even a trace of pot in the blood deny an entire policy? Isn’t that like saying that because a person had a drink a few days ago that he is still drunk, and would it not be a rather difficult thing to prove in court, should it come to that?
If the drug can be detected in a person’s blood, then why is it that they test the urine in the workplace, etc.?
Call a local plaintiff’s attorney (eventually). State law will vary but as a general rule it is the burden of the insurance company to prove that the insured deliberately lied on an important fact which would have caused them not to write the policy. Remember, they collected premiums. There is a contract. It is the insurance company’s burden to bust it, after the fact. In most states it is very difficult. The final answer will depend on the law, the facts, and the attorney, but they should not under any circumstances just roll over.
JohnW77706, Esq.
Board Certified, Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas
Thanks a ton for the info. I’ll pass it on.