Can someone explain to me nearly vivacity insurance? This is basically an example, how does the ruling apply??
Helen obtained a policy of insurance insuring her time and naming her niece Julie as beneficiary. Helen died, and about a year latter the policy was found within her house. When Julie claimed the insurance money, the insurer refused to earnings on the ground that the policy required that notice of annihilation be given to it promptly following the death. Julie claimed that she be not bound by the time limitation because she have never agreed to it, since she was not a delegation to the insurance contract. Is Julie entitled to recover?
Answers:
imho, yes.
while Helen agreed to the contract stipulations, the court will plausible rule that this one is void as it attempts to illegally enrich the party who wrote the contract for no valid business principle. ["void as mortal against public policy"]
Julie likely won't achieve added interest on the policy for the time delay, however, since that wasn't the insurance company's failing but rather that of Helen's presonal representative [or doesn`t matter what that state calls her/him/it] who needed to conduct a thorough scrabble for assets.
naturally, insurance companies approaching to delay payments as much as possible ... you may involve to warn them that they'll be liable for defensible costs of collection as well as the extermination benefit and so if an attorney has to be hired to sue -- he's mortal paid beside their money.
GL
Absolutely. Happens all the time. VERY frequently, claims walk in YEARS after the disappearance, because there be no knowledge of the policy at the time of demise.
Which is why you should ALWAYS have a record of bank accounts, insurance policies, etc, where on earth someone else can access them, if you kick sour.