Take a look at THIS This is a bunch of crap. After reading this, tell us what you thnk about it :mad:
What I think is that you seem rather hysterical over the refusal of an insurer to pay a claim that quite clearly is not covered under the terms of the insurance policy.
I also suspect you posted this in the wrong forum.
shrug. Seems pretty murky to me, without any of the facts; only the claims of various parties. If they turn this into a “He was a soldier, so he should get his money, never mind what the papers say”, however, as much as I support the military and the war in Iraq, I’d want to smack that person.
If the reported facts in your link are correct I am with the insurance company on this one. If she has a case it is against the agent for failure in his duty of care to her - if he explained it all clearly, no cover until you have paid, then fine if not…
On the face of it if he signed in mid-Dec and knowingly chose not to have them deduct the first premium until the end of January then she has not got much of a case. The fact he is a serviceman about to go on active duty is irrelevent. Do dead soldier lie any more still?
As much as I feel for the woman with her husband being killed and all, I’m afraid she hasn’t got much of a case. Now, if the agent actually did lie to her and tell her they were covered as soon as they signed the papers, then maybe they can get a little something. Still, I doubt it.
Technically the insurance company is correct. No pay, no play.
When you buy a life insurance policy you either “bind” it at the point of sale with a payment or you wait for the policy to issue. If you bind it with a payment you get a slab of paper that says “you got yourselves some coverage for 90 days no matter what…as long as you told no lies on the application.”
If Miss Amy can’t produce that paper, she is out of luck. Nothing evil about it.
You wouldn’t place a bet with your bookie today for a race on June 1st with the understanding that you’ll front the cash on June 15th. Insurance is the same way. Otherwise we’d all take applications on our spouses and not pay the premium until after the spouse dies. Right?
Let this be a lesson to the rest of us (well, the rest of you–I already knew the company is right.) 
Very very unfortunate, but clearly legal.
Hmm- I thought the OP was referring to this.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/abc.nightline/index.html
I love the way you lefties line up to defend big companies when they deny monies to the servicemen who have served in Iraq. But in the real world out there is a legal mechanism that protects the individual against company representives who misstate the facts and cause injury because of.
It is called “a jury of peers”.
All insurance salesman represent their companies and under certain circumstances their companies can be held accountable for their actions and words.
The “certain circumstances” in this case is the possibility of a trial by jury.
And only a jury peopled by the peers of lefties like those who have thus far posted on this thread would deny the family the two hundred and fifty thousand bucks.
I hope they sue without counsel and get a million bucks.
Are you being ironic? I have never in my life heard anybody accuse “lefties” as being pro-big business and anti-people…even servicemen. :rolleyes:
Bullpucky. If the bind date preceeds the death date, THEN she gets the money. If the bind date is AFTER the death date, sorry. The crucial thing is the bind date. It doesnt matter if he singlehandedly caught Saddam himself and then died, it is all about dotting your Is and crossing your Ts. She needs to produce something in writing with the bind date on it, patriotism is of no concievable concern here.
So, did it mention anything about his SGLI? Every service member gets it if memory serves…
Please don’t feed the trolls.
You’ve never struck me as the kind of guy who was really on the ball, Milum, but I would have thought even you would know that it is illegal to award peerages in the good ol’ US of A.
The phrase you were looking for is “a jury of one’s peers”.
Since when was athelas lumped in with us “lefties,” Milum?
I have.
But on a totally separate issue (Big Media v. parents, where lefties routinely confuse “whatever shit the broadcasters and advertisers want to throw at people’s kids over the public’s airwaves” with “free speech”), so let’s not hijack this thread over it.
What that jury would have to determine is if the insurance salesman or company lied or covered up facts that he was ethically bound to reveal, thus leading the family to believe they were covered when they weren’t. Only then do they get anything.
But suing w/o counsel would be an extraordinarily stupid course of action, I hope he was only exaggerating on that bit.
And indeed it’s curious, the a-priori lumping-together of everyone who advocated the letter-of-the-law answer as “lefties”.
I’d want Milum on my jury. “Evidence, pfft, I don’t need to hear that! How many zeros ya looking for?”
I suspect that he has been on a couple of mine. :eek:
The link has expired, so I can’t read the story.
But from what has been posted, it sounds like there was no fiduciary relationship, which is required for the insurance contract to be binding.
Money must change hands for the contract to be valid and enforceable. And the bind date is the bind date, period. And it says so on every insurance application on the planet.
It is the responsibility of each party to a contract to understand it thoroughly. I can’t sign something and then say I didn’t understand it, because in signing it I am stating that I have read and understand it!!!
It’s really too bad when bad things happen, but it sounds like the consumer screwed up, to her eternal grief.
And I am a rightie, in case anyone is keeping score! 
That’s probably because this thread is more than six weeks old.