Let's hope not. But if s/he is, s/he would not be the 1st to attempt this type of shocking crime.
It's tough to know the way often people get away with "offing" their spouses or members of the family for the insurance money, but a quick Google search reveals that quite a few would-be beneficiaries get caught and tossed inside the clink, goosing the ratings of CourtTV in the process.
The disturbing thing about life insurance is that it generates a moderately undesirable circumstances through which other people stand to benefit financially out of your death. In the company of the wrong people, your life insurance policy will become, in effect, a bounty on your head.
Life-insurance-related murder is the most insidious type of insurance fraud, which is any type of lying-staged accidents, calculated omission, willful negligence-in order to obtain settlement from an insurer.
Though it should be said that the guy who burns down houses and collects from insurers is a saint next to these two women, who preyed upon two homeless guys by setting them up with insurance policies and then murder them.
Perhaps the creepiest case of life-insurance-related murder: Olga Rutterschmidt and Helen Golay, both in their 70s, killed two homeless males, setting them up with insurance policies, drugging them and running them over with their car.
In April 2008, Olga Rutterschmidt, 75 and Helen Golay, 77, were found guilty of murdering Kenneth McDavid and Paul Vados, two homeless men living in Los Angeles.
With each murder, Rutterschmidt and Golay won the victim's trust, even putting them each up in apartments. Then they forged life insurance applications and waited (to avoid inspiring suspicion from insurers when it came time to cash in).
McDavid and Vados ended up being both found dead in alleys after being drugged and run over.
Police suspicion mounted after they observed the similarities between murders: both cases appeared to be hit and runs, and both guys were claimed by strange elderly women.
When this case became public knowledge, in 2006, we followed it with morbid curiosity on the Autohomeandhealth Agent Blog. The two elderly ladies were found guilty in the spring of 2008 and are serving life sentences in federal prison.
Murder and the Law
According to Prof. Bill Long, a legal consultant and prolific web author, "under the common law, a person who 'feloniously and intentionally' killed another is barred from getting the proceeds of your life insurance policy on the victim." Makes sense …
"But what was attention-grabbing about the CL rule," Long says on his Web page, DrBillLong.com, "is that it didn't require conviction for this crime to bar recovery … the civil standard of legal responsibility instead of the criminal standard of guilt is what's required." In other words manslaughter-which includes willful negligence-can also bar someone from cashing in on a policy. It needn't be blatant murder.
Other states have felt the need to get more specific by initiating "slayer statutes," which further codify bans on benefiting from spousal death. Other states have insurance-related codes; Long cites this one from Texas:
The interest of a beneficiary in a life insurance policy or agreement heretofore or hereafter issued shall be forfeited when the recipient is the principal or an accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured. When such is the case, the nearest relative of the insured shall receive said insurance.
When Insurance Companies are Liable
Some state courts have acknowledged that there are occasions when an insurer needs to be aware when something fishy is going on-when a person named as the beneficiary had no "insurable interest" in the insured.
New York lawyer Norman L. Tolle, who represents health and life insurance carriers, and has written on the subject of insurance-related murder and the obligations insurers need to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior.
In this article, Tolle notes an important case, Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v. Weldon, in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that insurers have a responsibility to "use reasonable care not to create a situation which may prove to be a stimulus for murder."
The 1957 case involved the murder of a 2-year-old by her aunt, who had been named a beneficiary on a life insurance policy for the child despite having no part in the child's upbringing. The father of the child sued the insurer for failing to employ "reasonable diligence" in making sure the aunt had an insurable interest in her niece's life.
Here's what the court found:
It has long been recognized by this court and virtually all courts in this country that an insured is placed in a position of maximum danger where a policy of insurance is issued on his life in favor of a beneficiary who's no insurable interest. . . . Where this court has found that such guidelines are unreasonably hazardous to the insured because of the risk of murder and for this reason has declared such policies void, it would be an anomaly to hold that insurance companies have no duty to use reasonable care not to create a situation which may prove to be a stimulus for murder.
In this case, the company didn't even bother to notify the child's parents that the aunt was taking out an insurance policy of their daughter. The parents found out about the policy only after the death of their child.
Conclusion
Even with extreme vigilance on the part of insurers and the insured, there will always be stories about people killing in order to, um, expedite their beneficiary status. Where there's greed and opportunity, there are ripe conditions for insurance murder.
CourtTV is counting on it.
Author Resource:
For fast, free and simple Arkansas insurance quotes , fill out the insurance form AutoHomeandHealth.info
NOTE- This article is intended for informational purposes only and not intended as professional advice
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")