Chutzpah. You’d think she would be contrite on her son’s behalf and would willingly forfeit any claim to this money, perhaps donating it to the families of the victims. Instead, this.
“EXCLUSIVE: Mother of San Bernardino terrorist is seen four years after he and his ISIS-loving wife massacred 14 of his co-workers – and she is STILL fighting the DOJ to get his $280,000 life insurance policy,” by Ruth Styles, Dailymail.com, December 11, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
The mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook has been pictured by DailyMailTV just days after the four-year anniversary of the massacre by her son and her daughter-in-law at a Christmas party.
Rafia Farook, 66, shared a home in Redlands, California, with her son and his ISIS-following wife Tashfeen Malik, and their baby daughter.
But she told investigators that she had no idea he was plotting a terrorist attack – even though the couple built some of the small bombs later used in the December 2, 2015 massacre at the home.
The spree killed 14 and injured 22, almost all of them colleagues of Farook’s at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health….
Rafia is now battling the Justice Department over Farook’s $280,000 life insurance policy of which she was the primary beneficiary
Exclusive DailyMailTV photos show Rafia Farook arriving at a local mosque on Friday in the rain.
She, her other son Syed Raheel, 34, and her husband Syed Sr., 70, were there for afternoon prayers.
Approached by DailyMailTV, Rafia refused to discuss her mass murderer son but said she was doing ‘OK’ four years on.
Rafia, who now lives with Syed Raheel in Corona, California, has always insisted that she did not notice Farook and Malik’s increasing radicalization or have any idea of their plans, and was caring for their baby daughter on the day of the atrocity….
Syed Raheel also refused to comment on the slaughter when spoken to by DailyMailTV but did say that the family is now trying to move on….
Rafia is battling the Justice Department over Farook’s $280,000 life insurance policy of which she was the primary beneficiary.
Insurers Minnesota Life Insurance paid out shortly after the attack but the funds were held by court after the Justice Department attempted to have the cash seized as proceeds of crime.
Rafia is continuing to fight attempts by the federal government to retain the payout.
She says that because she did not know her son was going to commit an act of terror, there is no reason for the money not to be paid….
Peter aka Coeurmaeghan says
Here I thought that ‘Chutzpah’ was an expression by Jewish folk. I suppose that the term applies here but I can think of a few different ones that apply to this harridan. Da noive.
Frank Anderson says
Peter, there is much wonderful and colorful wisdom to learn from Jewish teachings, even for non-Jewish people.
Paul Townsley says
Frank how can the insurance company win when they have nothing to do with this. They already paid out so they’re done. DOJ has the money and that’s who she is fighting to get it from.
Frank Anderson says
Paul, the insurance company wins if it does not sell a policy that has to be paid.
Collecting a premium of say a thousand dollars and having to pay 280 thousand is a loser, unless it does not sell 500 policies while paying only one. Remember commissions eat a substantial part of premiums, to the sales agent, the local manager, district manager, regional manager and up. Probably about half of the premium makes it to the company to pay its expenses and losses.
It can win if it pays 280.000 but does not have to pay a million plus both sides’ attorney fees and litigation costs.
It can win by raising its rates so that it still makes a profit for its owners regardless of its payments.
The question will always be “Whose side are you on?” I can see where an enterprising insurance company would welcome sales to terrorists as long as they can get non-terrorists to join the pool and cover the losses..
The ultimate losers no matter what happens are the people who buy the insurance and live. Those are the people I support. They harm nobody. They are trying to make a provision, a bet, that they may not live, to provide for the needs of their families. A terrorist suicide bomber/attacker KNOWS he is not going to live. There is no RISK and he knows it when purchasing the policy. That’s my opinion..
I did not see in the article whether this policy was obtained through the employer or if it was bought directly by the “insured”
Frank Anderson says
Additional thought: by paying the policy limit into the court and leaving the fight to others, the insurance company limits its loss. IF it has to sell the policy to avoid charges of discrimination, and the insured dies before being convicted of a crime, which in my opinion prevents conviction, then letting the DOJ and victims families have their shot at taking the money does get the insurance company out.
It would be both somewhat ironic and just at the same time if this policy were part of an employer based plan which had to pay for the deaths cause by the terrorist attack at the same time the insurance company had to pay the terrorist for killing other insured. Insurance cases can get ugly very quickly.
Robert-_k says
It’s kind of like murdering your parents and asking the Judge for mercy because you’re an orphan.
Trick_or_Treat says
????
Infidel says
You laugh, but that’s what happened in the early 90s w/ the Menendez brothers, who shot their parents, and then one of the jurors who acquitted them said on TV that she felt sorry for them b’cos they were orphans. Never mind that they were the ones who orphaned themselves (and never mind the fact that adults are never described as orphans, only kids are)
Frank Anderson says
Infidel, one to another, this kind of mindless person can get on a jury, one or more of them in a trial. Also, by their focusing on the issue “Did the Beneficiary commit the crime” instead of “Did the insured commit the crime” the insurance company stands a poor chance at winning. Plus, particularly in Torts class, a 2 semester, 3 hour per semester class in an ABA accredited law program, insurance companies are frequent subjects of discussion arising from the cases they have lost. Please take a look at my other comments and explanation to see if you wish to add anything. I do not know all there is to know and wish to learn more.
Jay says
Rafia Farook and her entire family should be deported immediately! What an insult she still resides in the USA! And she feels she’s entitled to insurance money too! OMG!
It’s appalling ! And she probably gets welfare benefits. It’s an insult to all the victims and their families!
Of course California likes anyone that hates the USA!
Trump,2020 our only hope ??????
PRCS says
If she and her entire family are here–legally–and didn’t do or enable that criminal act they’re not going to be charged, tried and convicted of anything that would entail deportation.
OUR laws are THE law of the land.
John says
Our Constitution was written with religious freedom regarding various Christian denominations. Religious freedom would not allow some Aztec religion which sacrifices a young maiden every year to the gods or other pagan religions that throw a young maiden into a volcano every year to please the gods. Therefore we should not recognize Islam as a religion which is a political system masquerading as a religion which says kill anyone who leaves the religion kill anyone who insults the religion kill anyone who insults Mohammed, etc etc.
gravenimage says
The Founders did indeed know that there were religions besides Christianity–including Islam.
But this does *not* mean that anyone can murder in the name of their faith. Anything that breaks our laws is not protected by the First Amendment.
PRCS says
The First Amendment of our Constitution states that Congress shall make no law which intentionally prohibits the free exercise of religious practice.
Laws passed by Congress concerning murder, for example, do not exempt the followers of specific religions from the legal consequences of OUR legal system.
Of course–as the camel’s nose is already into the tent–Allah’s slaves will try, try and keep trying to get the entire animal in by tweaking those laws to their favor.
Savvy Kafir says
PRCS says: “OUR laws are THE law of the land.”
But our current laws are obviously not up to the task. These people never should have been living in the U.S., or in any free, Western society, in the first place. It was pure INSANITY to allow Muslims to immigrate to the West. And now, throughout the West, we’re reaping the predictable consequences of allowing imperialistic, violence-prone, infidel-hating savages to live among us.
Our laws clearly need to be changed, so that the U.S. — and other Western nations — can be made Muslim-free, via mass deportations, before it’s too late. Our current laws are obviously not adequate, as they do not allow us to do what’s necessary for the survival of the West — no matter how stringently they might be enforced. The root problem that must be addressed is MUSLIMS LIVING IN THE WEST. That’s what has to be corrected; or, eventually, we’re f**ked. No matter what other steps we might take … if we allow Muslims to continue living & breeding among us, sooner or later, the West is f**ked. It will all become thoroughly Islamized – indistinguishable from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Somalia. I, for one, consider that to be an unacceptable outcome — and preventing that outcome is all that matters to me at this point. Compared to that desperate necessity, I don’t give a damn about any Muslims, OR any rights they currently have, under laws made long ago by people who never had any idea we might one day be stupid enough to allow the mass immigration of Muslims to our countries.
In the U.S., a Constitutional Amendment is required, banning Islam and calling for the expulsion of all Muslims. It will be one of the most important amendments ever made.
gravenimage says
I think our laws are up to the task–they just need to be consistently enforced, which is not always the case, especially when it comes to Islam.
PRCS says
They (especially those born here) are not going to be arrested or deported because of their ‘religious’ beliefs.
Yes, OUR laws are THE law of the land.
Whatever mechanism may be necessary (executive order, amending the constitution, passing a specifically relevant law, etc.), every citizen or resident of this country–Muslims and their useful idiots included– must be told from the top that man-made U.S. law reigns supreme here and that ANYONE who acts out a religious ‘practice’ which violates them will be held legally liable for their action(s).
Minneapolis’ Somali taxi drivers, Homaidan Al-Turki, Warren Jeffs, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, and a raft of others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_leaders_convicted_of_crimes) have learned that the hard way–as with others who’ve cited various religious beliefs/customs–to abuse, violate the civil rights of, or maim/murder others here.
I understand your concerns, but–Sarsour’s claim to the contrary–OUR man-made laws already are THE law of the land.
IMO
Savvy Kafir says
gravenimage — Our current laws & Constitution will not allow us to rid the U.S. of Muslims; and that is the only way to prevent the eventual Islamization of the country. If Muslims remain here, and continue their demographic jihad by having lots of babies, eventually they will be able to call the shots. They will change the laws to their advantage. And they will replace our Constitution with one based upon Sharia — because we weren’t willing to amend the Constitution, so that we could take effective action while we still had the opportunity.
gravenimage says
Savvy Kafir, we should stop letting Muslims in–the “Muslim ban” is a good first step (Muslim immigration to the US is down 90%).
We can start deporting Muslims, beginning with the worst Jihadists.
Frank Anderson says
GI, with great courtesy, honor and respect, is there any grade of jihadi? Is there such a thing as a “better” jihadi to contrast with a worse? All true muslims are jihadis: some just let others do the dirty work while the rest help support it. The myth of moderate vs. radical must be eliminated to face the problem and reach toward solutions. God bless any who leave islam with all the support, protection and encouragement that can be given.
Del says
No payout because every policy deals with coverage when committing a crime.
barbaracvm1 says
Murders are not allowed to financial profit from their crime. Either insurance or writing a book, etc. If anything the victims of the crime are supposed to receive the proceeds.
Jay says
We cannot say for sure that Rafia Farouk did not enable her son and his wife to commit mass murder — can we?? And I think her immigration status should be investigated!!
Just my humble opinion – protect the USA is my first priority!
And no Muslims should be allowed on any military bases in the USA ever
for any kind of training!! Lest we forget their attack on 9/11 and the enormous consequences the USA suffered and still encounters to this day!
God bless and save America from this insanity!! ?????????
Charles Shinn says
She should move into Newsom’s house, he’s a rich social justice warrior. #RecallGavin #Trump2020
Nate Greene says
Release the insurance funds and immediately deport she and all her family members back where they came from. Good riddance.
gravenimage says
Why should we pay her? She does not deserve to profit from murder in America, whether here or back in Dar-al-Islam.
PRCS says
if the policy does not list what her son did as a disqualification–betcha her lawyers will win.
mortimer says
The most obscene part of the San Bernardino massacre is that it occurred at an office party celebrating the love, generosity and self-giving of the Christmas spirit.
The jihad-terrorist Syed Farook wanted to protest Christmas, Christianity and the dirty kafirs and turn Christmas into an Islamic hate fest directed against the dirty kufaar.
Savvy Kafir says
Yes. And that savage attack on a Christmas celebration is powerful symbolism that we should keep in mind.
If Muslims are allowed to continue living among us, eventually the very best aspects of Western civilization & culture will be brutally repressed, and replaced by the hellishness of Islam.
Savvy Kafir says
As the Christmas season approaches, I’ve been tempted to try to forget (for a while) about Islam and all of the nastiness it’s bringing us. But then it occurs to me that many of the wonderful things I associate with this holiday are in danger of being utterly destroyed by the creeping Islamization of the U.S. and other Western countries. And that pisses me off. And suddenly I’m back in the fight, whether I want to be or not.
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer and Savvy Kafir. The same is true with attacks at Christmas markets, on Christmas shoppers and tree-lighting ceremonies, on Nativity scenes, and on Christmas masses.
Adrian says
She can get $1. The rest goes for the survivors. Justice!
Infidel says
Yeah. How is it that that money hasn’t already been carved up and split among their victims?
gravenimage says
Life insurance does not typically pay out in the case of death by suicide or crime.
The company donating the amount to the victims would have been a nice touch, but is not legally requited.
Infidel says
A different thought struck me. Since Farook and Tasfeen murdered office colleagues in San Bernardino, chances are that they all shared the same life insurance company. In which case the company in question could have taken whatever was in Farook’s account, and then split it b/w the victims in their policies as a part of their payouts. I’m assuming that if someone is murdered, life insurance does pay out
gravenimage says
True, Infidel–and I’m sure the beneficiaries of the victims got the life insurance.
WPM says
Those officer workers that were terrorist also threw a baby shower for these human termites(the Farooks) a few months before the Christmas party.
Michael Copeland says
Don’t forget the egregious BBC called it “an office lunch”.
Can’t bring religion into it, now, can we……
Michael says
Mortimer said it best.
Heidi says
Send her and her kind back to where they came from. Every politician and judge should read this. The shortfalls of our security and safety falling back on us. At least you have Donald Trump, we are left with Merkel and the likes https://www.meforum.org/60101/broken-asylum-system-enables-islamist-infiltration
Frank Anderson says
I wonder if the victims and families of the killed might have a claim for the insurance money? I don’t know. The theory of unjust enrichment might be a starting place for research and argument. Also, California statutes may have some provisions that apply.
I think the theory that a criminal should not be allowed to profit from his crime might include indirect benefits to a “third person” (mother) as well as direct benefits to the [politely] “perpetrator”. Example to consider, X kills a room full of people and writes a book assigning the royalties to Y. X cannot take the royalties and give them to Y; but by assigning them accomplishes the same result.
Will the insurance company deny coverage or cave in? If they cave, it will be a good reason to buy from another company..
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Frank Anderson says
Footnote: It is AMAZING that the Obama “Justice Department” moved to seize the proceeds. If it were Canada they might have added 10 million dollars and given it to her.
Ray Jarman says
Frank, Having sold insurance in the late 1970 as a way to earn extra money, we had to attend a yearly conference to retain our license several unanswered questions come to mind about suicide. Since Farook had to know that jihad means that death is will be the end result, then the court and insurance company could assume that he committed suicide by police. Many insurance policies have a no-payout for suicide during the first five to seven years, so jihad would negate the policy. I would think that a good lawyer could win this case and I certainly agree that if this company were to pay out to the mother, I would post comments in all of the local papers.
Frank Anderson says
R.J. see what good comes from conversation? You saw something I missed. “Suicide by cop” is still suicide.
But reading the article raises a question.
If Minnesota insurance started to pay the money forcing the DOJ to impound it, then the company rolled over and should be scorned forever.
IF, on the other hand, (Client’s Prayer-Lord help me find a one-handed lawyer!), the insurance company paid the money into court to allow the court to decide to whom it should be paid (interpleader) then they properly avoided a claim against them for wrongful denial of benefits at the same time avoiding the scorn and outrage of supporting a terrorist. Any money should go to the victims. The more the better, to discourage future terrorists from buying insurance and then killing to be killed for the proceeds. Such a purchase is a second terrorist attack on the insurance system and society.
James Lincoln says
Ray Jarman,
Thanks for the expert life insurance info.
I also found another possible angle while doing a web search, perhaps you could comment regarding its veracity:
“If you die while committing a crime or participating in an illegal activity, the life insurance company can refuse to make a payment.”
https://www.truebluelifeinsurance.com/7-ways-life-insurance-will-not-pay-out/
Keys says
Yes, and some policies will not pay for death due to war. I am not sure about “terrorism”.
We need our Congress to pass legislation on this, because it is not just that the terrorists, or their families, benefit. On the other hand, any victim of terrorism who had life insurance should not be denied.
This needs to be spelled out clearly in the law in my opinion. But when legislators spend most of their time on impeachment and “community organizing” many of the things that matter to us do not get done.
Frank Anderson says
J.L. think about this possibility: Commit a crime. Die in jail. Get paid as long as the premiums are current.
Also, think of the possible argument that if killed during the commission of a crime, there has been no conviction. Dead people cannot be tried and convicted of crimes. Under the presumption of innocence, there was no crime; and the benefit must be paid.
If the insurance company refused to pay for a crime that has never been established by a conviction, it would probably get stuck not only for the policy, but punitive damages and attorney fees for wrongful denial of coverage if it lost the suit over refusal to pay.
If the insurance company refuses to write the policy for “discriminatory” reasons, it could be sued for that.
Writing life insurance is a minefield not only for the insurance company, but also for every person involved in selling or maintaining it.
This may be a good reason if selling life insurance must be continued, to just raise the rates, sell to anyone, and pay the proceeds into court if there is a question of who should be paid.
Life insurance is a BET that the person buying it is going to die before the end of the policy..
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson,
Thanks for the feedback – your keen insight is always helpful.
As always, I wish you the very best with your health issues.
Frank Anderson says
Another quote from the Bible that appears elsewhere, “A twofold cord is strong; But a threefold cord is not easily broken.” Whatever else we do by reading and writing here, we learn and help others learn. Not a bad day’s work.
Halal Bacon says
death during a crime does not pay
Ray Jarman says
Halal Bacon,
You are correct and answered James Lincoln’s query. As to the being killed while in combat, the military offers a very, very inexpensive insurance policy to protect families of fallen heroes but in this case, I still don’t see how an insurance company could be compelled to pay out the policy.
gravenimage says
True, Ray. I doubt given the circumstances of this Jihadist’s death that the insurance company would be paying out at all.
Frank Anderson says
GI, the big difference law school makes in thinking is the demand to evaluate and argue both sides of a case. One of the first seminars I attended after law school included a long session on bad faith refusal of insurance companies to pay claims. There are many books guiding potential plaintiffs in making BIG money when an insurance company refuses to pay. That is why the safe, but disgusting and cowardly way to avoid claims above the policy limit is to pay the money into court with an Interpleader action.
Who ever said a life insurance company had scruples? It’s all numbers. As long as they make a profit, they don’t care. When they start selling policies, collecting premiums for a year or two, and paying out the face value enough times on criminal attacks, maybe things will change. But as long as they control the rates and tell nobody about their income, expenses and profits, all people who buy life insurance will subsidize terrorists, among other.
gravenimage says
Frank, I was not specifically making a case for this or any insurance company having scruples–just that I doubt they would have to pay out under these circumstances.
Frank Anderson says
GI, any business is for the vast majority of the money it collects merely a handler of that money. In the insurance business a cold, academic, heartless analysis is made as to what path costs the company the least damage to its profit. Avoiding sales because some of them may result in losses exposes the company to reduced sales, discrimination claims and all forms of strife, legal and regulatory. Denying claims, especially when the claims are large enough to get lawyers involved, invites losses far greater than policy limits.
Cases are tried almost uniformly in front of juries, because juries hate insurance companies and will take their side with a favorable verdict in the most unusual circumstances. So, like shoplifting or meter tampering (which I helped reduce before going to law school) the honest ordinary customer, not the business pays for the fraudulent losses. So many businesses don’t pay attention and could care less.
The utility that employed me before law school was blissfully unaware that more than 3 percent of its wholesale electric purchases were being stolen. With 3 motivated and well-rewarded technicians and diligent management, the problem was reduced. Other similar utilities never made the effort for various reasons including their own employees were active parts of it. The uninformed customers paid higher rates not knowing they were paying the bills for those who steal. The same with insurance contracts.
What makes sense in the light of day and reason does not apply in the dark of indifference and corruption.
Wellington says
Great conversation going on between many due to your post of 1:23 P.M., Frank.
My compliments.
Frank Anderson says
W. compliment appreciated. We ALL try to do well here. Good place to learn.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
We all know that Frank Anderson is one smart cookie…
Buzzinoffski says
They’ll end up paying, and we’ll never know about it .
Battle says
The news reported verses of the Koran were displayed on Syed Farook’s and Tashfeen Malik’s residence walls. The mother Rafina Farook did not see the verses?
Battle says
The media reported Syed Farook and Tashfeen Farook had Koran verses on the residence walls.
The mother Rafia Farook did not see the verses?
DHazard says
Muslims are expected to emulate Muhammad. This means that most of your income should be unearned. Since Ralfia is not going on a caravan raid anytime soon, suing is the knowledgeable Muslims third preferred source of income, after extortion (jizya) and fraud. I wonder if Muslims parents taking out life insurance policies on their sons is a sign of common sense? I also wonder is she had some kind of conversation with her son, towards the end, about how his death will be a win-win for her and him.
Rufolino says
For this woman grabbing the insurance payout is equivalent to an Islamic caravan raid, and perfectly justified because Mohammed did it.
You can take a Moslem out of primitive Islamic territory. But you can’t take primitive Islam out of a Moslem.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thanks for the remarks by the insurance-knowledgeable commenters. What do you all think about the following idea?
“Attention, irony-minded jiihadis! Want to be a pioneer of Jihad by Life Insurance? Here is what you do…
Take out a generous life insurance policy on yourself, payable to Zionist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or the Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC). Then suicide-attack one of these organizations. When they find out that they are entitled to your life insurance payout, these money grubbers will fight among themselves to maximize the payout to their individual organizations, thereby causing strife (fitna) among them. But because your death is a suicide while committing a crime, they will be left with no money at all. Ha ha! (CAIR might have to hire a clever Jewish lawyer to make sure that your non-payment wishes are carried out.)”
Frank Anderson says
M.S., please help me understand how the commission of a crime is established against a dead man? I don’t see how criminal charges can be prosecuted against a dead man, given they cannot be prosecuted against a person who is alive but mentally incapable of assisting in his defense. Under the US rule of Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty, there is no crime until there is a conviction. What is your reasoning please?
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Frank, thanks for your remark. I guess you’re right. But my understanding is that insurance companies will try not to pay if it looks like the death was a suicide, and hence an insurance scam. So before putting this idea into practice, seek advice from a lawyer or an experienced suicide bomber.
Frank Anderson says
M.S. There are probably many books available on the subject of Bad Faith Insurance Litigation. At the seminar I attended that I have discussed here, I won one as a door prize. I am not creating my comments. I would like to learn if there is reason to support different analysis. The risk of refusing to pay, even if there is a contract provision, is that losing the lawsuit is not only the policy limits, but far greater losses in punitive damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and company time. As the company is concerned with MONEY instead of right and justice, it simply raises its rates to cover the expense of paying fraudulent claims.
Two television series had a number of shows about insurance investigations and claims issues before I went to law school, Cannon and Rockford. We are watching them now on DVD.
As long as life insurance is sold, those who buy it will pay for the companies’ greed and legal requirements, just as we pay for shoplifting or meter tampering or taxes on the business. It’s just another business expense to pass through until the product becomes too expensive, at which time the business will collapse.
Top Hat says
Most insurance companies include a phrase that states the policy will not pay if the insured died while being involved in the commission of a crime. it has NOTHING to do with what the beneficiary may or may not have known. She needs to become educated to the ways of a civilized society.
Frank Anderson says
T.H. the presence of a clause does not guarantee the insurance company will win a dispute over paying or refusing to pay a claim. It may help. But if the company refuses to pay, is sued, and loses, it may be forced to pay far more than the policy limits. If they sell the policy they must pay unless they can convince a judge, jury and appeal court their contract term defeats the claim. Please consult a currently licensed attorney for better and more current information.
gravenimage says
Mother of San Bernardino jihad mass murderer demands to receive his $280,000 life insurance policy
………………
Good God, what nerve. Ultimately this does not surprise, though. Muslims want the “Jihad seeker’s allowance” however they can get it.
Lydia Church says
Surely she means for his victim’s families, right???
infidel says
These worms are verily the lowest of the lowest of the lowest of the lowest of the lowest in humanity..
What a shameless creature… Not a single word of apology for the victims… just demands after demands. She is certainly in FULL KNOW of the crimes committed by her children… These filthy creatures play similar games in India too…DISGUSTING!!!
Trick_or_Treat says
Isn’t ‘she’ a real sweetie?! Actually, at very first glance, I thought it might’ve even been Nadler trying to go in cognito in a hijab.
Linde Barrera says
To Trick_or_Treat- Good one! This Muslim woman who wants her son’s life insurance proceeds needs to be told that there is no pay-out if the insured committed a crime. And my Congressman is Jerrold Nadler; I am not happy with him at all, most especially for his clueless jargon regarding President Trump’s impeachment. TRUMP 2020.
Jay says
You can’t kill yourself and have your next of kin get the insurance money. That’s precisely what he did. His act was murder/suicide. So the answer must be “No.”
janwog says
Typicaö supremacist Islamic behavior. Probably she will win the money legally, then deport her.
OLD GUY says
Why would any insurance company allow or be allowed to pay the beneficiary, when the insureds death took place while committing a murderous terror attack upon others? The terrorists family should not benefit from the criminal action of the insured. If this is the case, insurance companies are opening the door to more of these claims and actions. Its simple take out a large insurance policy and commit suicide by police. BAD PLAN!
Frank Anderson says
O.G. I agree with your reasoning. OUR problem is I doubt present law supports either of us. It starts when the insurance company being able to decline to sell policies based on suspected violent inclinations is legally considered prohibited discrimination. Then, the foundation of the contract is “If I die, you pay.” If the insurance company has a term in the policy that it does not pay based on MY criminal conduct, I must be proven to have engaged in criminal conduct when my death arose or occurred. The only present legal way I know of to prove criminal conduct, to legally establish that it happened and I am guilty, is to try me and obtain a conviction. If I am dead, I cannot be tried. So NO crime has been established by legal rules. Without a crime being established, (which I Do Not Think can be established in a non-criminal proceeding, a civil suit, because the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is “beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”; while in a civil proceeding it is “by the preponderance of evidence, more likely than not”) the contract to pay must be performed.
Failure to pay the policy can result in huge punitive damage awards, paying both sides attorney fees and litigation expenses, and costing years of lost time for company personnel. AS LONG AS life insurance is being sold, it will be helping promote terrorist and other criminal events unless changes in the law are made.
There is a reason that more than one Communist leader said to us “You will provide the rope we will use to hang you.”
I see one avenue for hope. The Supreme Court ruled that a contract for an illegal purpose is VOID, as though it never happened, in United States v. Biloxi. The question of illegal purpose MIGHT be arguable in a civil as opposed to criminal proceeding.
I ask for and welcome any thoughts, differing or explaining. I hope I am in error. This is what I learned just about 40 years ago and know of no changes.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
OLD GUY says
Maybe RICO laws and rules can be used, seems if a criminal organization cannot profit from illegal actions a terrorist and their family or organization should not be allowed to either. Yes I know the lawyers would have to fight it out in court, the government has plenty of lawyers and they don’t mind spending tax payers money. Just look at what we the tax payers payed for the Mueller report.
Taylor Scobie Humphrey says
Nice tablecloth, lady.