Anything to save some money! Welcome to capitalist america!

i don't know how this decision could possibly be upheld.

In other news, a New Jersey woman who was stabbed by roving bicycle thieves in her area, was denied medical coverage because of her need for reading glasses.

Wow. Just wow. Sometimes I wish waterboarding was still an accepted practice - only to be reserved for asshats like this.

She'll get paid. All she has to do is publicize this (which she's obviously doing). Either it was an oversight in the front lines of Settlers, they can blame some peon and keep their butts covered, or some higher-up was really trying to screw over a customer, and Settlers, after having their nose rubbed in it publicly will still blame one of their peons, pay out, and look for another customer to screw. Either way it's the same outcome for Ms. McCraw.

I bet that pre-existing condition didn't keep the insurance company from cashing the premium checks.

Looks like Settlers' is going to have a nice time in court :)

Why is it legal to sell life insurance, and then say, "Nope, you don't qualify." After you need it? Shouldn't that be part of the evaluation?

This is on par with/worse than the convenience store clerk whose family (read: daughter- she was a single mom) was denied her life insurance because she was killed as part of a "hate crime", which is not covered by the policy...

I have a coworker who used to work for an insurance company, and man some of the fucked up stories she has told, cold blooded. Insurance corperations are some fucked up people

When telling my Bio major friend about this, his response:
"Well, hepatitis C does thin out your blood, so she probably didn't clot up"

NOTE: Yes, I know the victim was male, but it's a direct quote.

Not condoning the ridiculousness of this ruling, just maybe a bit of perspective on what the hell they're trying to pull.

Is sense-clouding greed a pre-existing condition? If so, the families of the people in charge of this company are screwed.

WTF is insurance for? "Hey, pay us hundreds of dollars every month, and we won't give you anything in return!!!"

Let's see ... Settler's won't pay on Curtis' life insurance policy if he has a pre-existing condition, dies of a pre-existing condition, or dies of a non-pre-existing condition. What was the policy supposed to cover?

I think I need to know more about this before I form an opinion... was the fact he had Hepatitis C not disclosed when the couple bought the insurance? If that's the case and it was a disqualifying condition, then that would mean the victim wasn't entitled to the insurance and denying the claim, while kind of heartless, is perfectly within the rights of the company. They do, however, have to return the premiums they collected, if that's the case.

@BigPapaCherry's life is a Cabaret:

In other news, studying Biology causes you to completely miss the point; news at 11 and weather on the 5.

So did they just deny it as a pre-x condition or did they take his policy away? If the Hep C was an underwriting question that was answered incorrectly and they rescinded based on that, then fine.. if they only denied it and never said he had a right to the policy i dont see how they could defend themselves in court.

It's not clear at all from the link, but I'm wondering if the Insurance company is arguing that he had an undisclosed, pre-existing medical condition when the policy was purchased. This would probably effectively render the policy invalid from the start. Perhaps when they were reviewing the medical records from his death, one of their investigators found out that he knew he had Hep. C before he bought the policy and didn't tell them about it, either to secure the policy or to keep the premium lower.

Glad she's taking it public -- insurance companies in particular bank on their customers not raising a fuss about stupid decisions, so they can get away with it. Now that the lawyers are out, they should suddenly "discover" their "error" any time now.

@Jack Doyle: Seriously. Can't have it both ways, folks--if you agreed to insure under those conditions, you accepted them.

I actually hope that Settler's Life Insurance wins this case. That way, they will essentially invalidate their entire business plan and eliminate the need for their company to exist. According to their philosophy, no one needs to take out a policy with their company because no one would ever receive a pay out. Now I'm not a doctor, but evidently, we all suffer from a pre-existing condition called being born. Symptoms include eventually dying at some point in the future. Congratulations, your life insurance policy is now void.

Devils advocate, we don't know the full story here.

If the buyer did not disclose pre-existing conditions that may have made him ineligible then the coverage may have been voided after they discovered that fact.

My take is the insurance company will cave after the lawsuit about to go to court. I never had life insurance but don't they make you get a physical to cover these problems before hand? By the way My father's insurance will test him for nicotine when he dies and if they find any we will get the smokers payout. It might even be if he is shot.

@Irashtar: look up.

post-claim underwriting

I think the whole line about 50 million people without health insurance should be expanded to only 50 million WITH insurance. If some is paying for insurance, but does not get its benefits, then they are essentially without insurance. That seems to be more and more people every day.

@snowmoon: or it could be the VERY EVIL

"post-claim underwriting"

Which IMHO should be forbidden.

@wchamilton: "They do, however, have to return the premiums they collected, if that's the case."

If a life insurance company denies your claim, they have to return all the premiums you paid? That seems too reasonable to be a real policy...

@Esquire99: Or the autopsy after his murder showed he had Hepatitis C which he hadn't known about. If he answered the health questions truthfully and to the best of his knowledge could the insurance company still legally deny the claim?

@snowmoon:

Why should it be forbidden? They ask certain questions in good faith at the time of the application and if these are answered correctly you will never have a problem. Only the people that answer in bad faith have problems with this process.

@squinko: If it turns out that you hid a condition that would have exempted you from coverage, then yes. I used to work for an automobile insurance company and if we discovered something on a new customer's record that would have made them ineligible for coverage with us we would cancel their policy back to the effective date and refund the premium.

@Citizen Kang: I understand Big's point just fine.

I read the complaint hoping for more info, but it's missing the denial letter that is supposed to be attached. Is it possible that this pre-existing condition was not disclosed to the insurer at the time of application? Even though it had nothing to do with his death, omitting important information like that could still be grounds for denial. (Pure speculation... but it seems like we're lacking some important background here. It just seems too ridiculous otherwise)

@Yamunation: This isn't health insurance, though; it's life insurance.

"We wonder if Hepatitis C is what really killed Kennedy."

I don't think it was Hepatitis, per Chuck Noblet it was syphilis:

Historically, syphilis is right up there with Germans. It wiped out the Romanovs, it decimated our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and of course, Fidel Castro impersonated Marilyn Monroe and gave President Kennedy a case of syphilis so severe that eventually it blew the back of his head off.

@Gene Gemperline: If they withheld the information about the pre-existing condition from the insurer, it would automatically invalidate their claim. Even if the condition does not directly lead to death, it can increase mortality, and correspondingly carries a higher premium. Obtaining life insurance for someone and misrepresenting their risk of death when obtaining it, even slightly, may constitute fraud.

@Yamunation: I do believe that's the insurance company's interpretation.

@Gene Gemperline: Didn't you know that bullets in the back are a very common symptom of Hepatitis?

@Yamunation: You are correct. That is exactly what they do.

it's amazing how an insurance company spends so much effort trying to wriggle its way out of its obligations.

@couldberunning: The problem is that many of the questions are vague enough that an average person may answer them "incorrectly".

So there is a huge gray area between good faith on the buyer and the insurance company paying the claim.

@Shoelace:
I'm not sure; It probably depends on the state law and the wording in the insurance premium. My instinct is to say no, they couldn't deny it if he didn't know about it, but there could be language in the policy that says otherwise. I'm having a hard time envisioning a circumstance in which it could have been pre-existing, yet gone totally unnoticed by either the insurance co. or his doctor. I suspect many/most life insurance policies require that you have some sort of physical exam, or disclose conditions you have based on a recent physical exam. If he claimed he had no diseases, but hadn't had a physical exam in 10 years, I could see that as being potential grounds for denial, assuming they can prove he had Hep. C at the time the policy was executed.

They apparently found out he had an pre-existing condition and yet the premiums and policy still seemed to exist .

WTF , And they say these guys will need the next round of bailouts ie many insurance companies .

@Sockatume: Seems like they'd have to prove she knew about the condition before getting coverage.

@squinko:
I actually suspect that might vary state-to-state. I imagine most states require a return of the premiums, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a few that allowed them to keep at least part, if not all, of the premiums under some sort of fraud rationale. There also might be some Federal law that preempts the states on this issue, but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head. Insurance is usually regulated at the state level, so my guess is state law would almost completely control.

@squinko: No, only if they deny your claim because you never should have qualified for coverage in the first place.

@heltoupee: I agree, she'll get paid -- but in the meantime this woman could lose her house while waiting for this to filter through the courts. This is DISGUSTING!

@Shoelace: it cover's Executives' contracted bonuses

@snowmoon: yeah.. it needs to go away forever.. god i hate insurance companies

There's a special level of Hell reserved for insurance company execs, right next to the Hitler wing.

We can all take comfort in the knowledge that when civilization collapses, insurance execs and agents will be the first ones eaten.