Real Time Web Analytics

Pages

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Can a murderer collect as beneficiary of the victim's life insurance?

While I hope that not many readers are wondering about this question for personal reasons, it's an interesting concept. If you murder someone who has named you as beneficiary under their life insurance policy, can you receive the insurance money?

There is an article discussing this very question on a blog called www.erassure.com. By the way, that blog is an excellent source of Canadian information and support for executors and I recommend it. The article, which you can read by clicking here, gives very clear answers to the question as Toronto lawyer Ian Hull looks at how the courts in Canada have dealt with it.

If you are convicted of murdering the victim and you have exhausted all rights to appeal, the court will remove you as beneficiary of the policy and you won't get the money.

Now here's a twist on it. The article also talks about whether this "crime doesn't pay" rule will stand where a person is found to have killed the victim but is found not guilty due to insanity. In that situation, the named beneficiary might still be able to receive the insurance money. In the courts, "insanity" or mental disorder can refer to a variety of illnesses or conditions.

Clearly the courts are interested in the concept of intent. If you intend to kill someone, you can't get their insurance money. No doubt this is intended both as a logical deterrent to stop us all from deciding not to wait for things to take their natural course, and a comment about the value we collectively place on human life.

What do you think of these rules?

3 comments:

  1. INTENT is major in all court situations.

    Premeditated generally nails the coffins.

    Insanity as you point out generally leads to a different outcome.

    Laws are made to protect people, to give them justice.
    Laws can never be 100% perfect as they encompass many situations. Sometimes the rule of law has to apply even though it does not seem right. Example we have all heard of this story (Robert Picton). Man kills women. Man won't tell where all the bodies are unless he gets something in return. To give the families closure etc., the court allows it. Are we happy? No, but that is the price we sometimes have to pay. It's a choice. Is it a reasonable choice? In this case it would appear to be yes. Sometimes you have to give a little to gain more.
    Another twisted example..(Robert Picton

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/23/worst-serial-killer-in-history-who-fed-prostitutes-to-pigs-sparks-rage-by-publishing-book/

    ReplyDelete
  2. The best way to "off" someone in Canada is to run them over in a crosswalk and go "ooops"...get your ticket and be on your way...not that I ever thought of that (I don't even own a car :) )

    ReplyDelete

You might also like

Related Posts with Thumbnails