Murder Victim's Claim Denied for 'Pre-Existing Condition'

Stephanie McCraw, widow of Curtis McCraw, is suing Settlers Life Insurance after they refused to pay because Mr. McCraw had a "pre-existing condition," unrelated to the cause of his death. Curtis McCraw, who had hepatitis C, was gunned down by unknown assailants last April in Knoxville, Tennessee. "Mrs. McCraw lost her husband and wants this life insurance company to pay what is owed her. The policy is not specific as to whether there is a difference as to how you die. It does not even say you won't get paid if you have a pre-existing condition. Yet, the company is denying this claim because her husband had Hepatitis C, something totally unrelated to the way he was killed," said Curtis's lawyer, William Hotz.

Comments

Re:And yet...

[juiceboxfan]

The company is going to lose BIG TIME on this one.

Not if Settlers Insurance can prove that the late Mr. McCraw knew that he had Hepatitis C. This isn't really about the cause of death it's about lying on the life insurance application. From TFA;

"The law in Tennessee is clear that the cause of death is not relevant," [Company President] Lowe said. "What is relevant is whether the insured truthfully informed the company of his health at time of his death. If an applicant lied, the company has a right to deny the claim."
Under state law, Lowe said, insurance companies have a two year period to contest the information in a policy holder's application. If in that time, the company "discovers the applicant did not tell the truth about his health, the company can void or rescind the policy even if the person has died."

Still the policy was only for $25k - it will cost the company more than that in bad press. They should just settle (it's in their name after all;-).

Re:The pre-existing condition is a claim of fraud.

[tritonman]

yet the company had no problem taking his money???

Re:The pre-existing condition is a claim of fraud.

[Fallen Kell]

It all comes down to whether or not he knew of his condition before he signed up for and received the insurance policy. But I would say from the sounds of it, he didn't know most likely because he would not have gone to a doctor to be tested for something like this as he probably could not afford it, and most likely did not have health insurance. So if the insurance company did not require a health screening, it is their fault for not properly vetting people who are taking out a policy, not his.