by pillsbury123 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 07:24 pm
My father passed away this past May and we have not received any life insurance money. It was going to my mom but on the 11th of october she passed away too. Still with no insurance money. I've been her full time caregiver for the past 3 years and have never received payment for that. It has been 5 months since my dad had passed and my sister and I are both facing eviction due to the funeral expenses of both parents. Is there any legal action that would make the insurance company hurry up before both of us are on the street.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 08:50 pm Post Subject:
The life insurance company is required to pay the designated beneficiarie(s) in the order of succession listed under the beneficiary designation in the policy, and unless you are one of those, you will not receive anything from the life insurance death benefit settlement. As well, the insurer is under no obligation to release any information to you as you are not party to the contract.
If you were designated as a beneficiary, you didn't mention that in your post, that could easily change some things.
I'm sorry that you weren't compensated for your care-giving, but that has nothing whatsoever with the life insurance settlement nor with the funeral arrangements.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 01:08 am Post Subject:
But even if a death claim was filed on "Mom's" behalf, assuming she was Dad's beneficiary, the claim should have been paid by now.
I assume a death claim was filed? It's possible that the OP thinks the insurance company just sends money when someone dies. Stranger tales have been told.
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 01:17 am Post Subject:
Ok I am the youngest of 5, 3(2 from my dad, 1 from my mom) sisters and 1 brother (from both of them as am I). When the paperwork was filed my sister Rhonda(dads oldest) was the beneficiary. The insurance company said it had to go to my mom. In the beginning of september they had told us if was in processing (they received the paperwork 3 days after my dad had passed May 19th). Now they told us it was going to my mom, in the middle of september. On oct. 11th she passed away. So would it go to my dads oldest or my moms oldest? I'm also in california so that will change somethings I'm sure.
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:13 am Post Subject:
Two things. First, California law states that if life insurance proceeds are not paid within 120 days of filing the claim, interest at a rate of 10% per annum is due from the date of death. So someone is entitled to that extra interest (and the tax bill it creates) since more than 120 has now elapsed.
Second, you should file a complaint with the CA Dept of Insurance ( www.insurance.ca.gov ) alleging unfair claims practices (Section 790.03(h) (2) Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon
communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies.
[and] (4) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements have been completed and submitted by the insured.
If Mom was the beneficiary at the time of Dad's death, the money belongs to her. Since she has since died prior to the payment of Dad's death claim, the money is payable to her estate, where wills or trusts prevail, and in the absence of either of those, the probate court becomes involved in a different light.
If Rhonda was the named beneficiary at the time of Dad's death, she is the only one entitled to receive the life insurance money. What she chooses to do with it is entirely up to her . . . it's her money.
Assuming no other facts have been omitted, one of these last two outcomes will be correct.
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 06:00 pm Post Subject:
there were no wills writing up as the money never showed so they couldn't dictate what they wanted done with it. In august the insurance company told Rhonda that the money is going to go to my mom, but would have to go back into review. On the original paperwork that was filed Rhonda was the sole beneficiary. Since mom has passed we are trying to get the insurance company to to stick with the paperwork and send it to my sister. As it turns out my sisters have already filed complaints under Section 790.03(h). I really do thank you for your time spent reading and replying to my posts. With all the stress I'm dealing with it's driving me nuts
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 09:00 pm Post Subject:
If I have both of the death certificates is there anyway I could step in and claim it so it stays away from the state? I have been talking with my moms daughter and she said I should look into it, because in all honesty I really don't trust my dads daughters.
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 04:27 am Post Subject:
OK, I'm confused. In the OPs first post, here's what was said:
My father passed away this past May and we have not received any life insurance money. It was going to my mom but on the 11th of october she passed away too.
So, Dad dies and mom was the beneficiary, and before the death benefit was paid, Mom died. Do I have that right?
Then in the OPs second post, I pulled this:
When the paperwork was filed my sister Rhonda(dads oldest) was the beneficiary. The insurance company said it had to go to my mom.
So, who's the beneficiary? Rhonda or Mom? Let's see if this makes sense:
Mom was the primary beneficiary and Rhonda was the contingent beneficiary. Since the death benefit wasn't paid on a timely basis after Dad died, and then Mom died before she could get the money, the insurer is stating that the death benefit is to be paid to Mom's estate? Is that right?
Max was on target and the insurer should be slapped for waiting so long to pay, assuming the death certificate and claim were properly filed with the insurer.
Something comes to mind. Does anyone know if the life insurance policy had a "short-term survivorship" requirement in it's provisions? You'll see this once in a while and the provision states that in order to actually receive the death benefit, the beneficiary must outlive the insured for a period of time. I've seen anywhere from 7 days to 6 months on this, rare as it occurs. Hmmmmm....
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 07:12 pm Post Subject:
Sorry for the confusion, my sister Rhonda was made the beneficiary on the paperwork, but the insurance company said it's going to mom. But since moms death I'm guessing it would be going to her estate.
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 03:10 am Post Subject:
OK, I guess the next logical question would be this: Why are they saying that mom gets the money when Rhonda was the designated beneficiary??
That makes no sense at all. None. There are very few reasons that I can think of that would make this happen and none seem likely enough to even mention here. The insurer is required to pay the stated beneficiaries in the order of succession as shown in the contract... they can't do anything else, period.
Was there some type of fraud implicated in naming the beneficiaries?
When you say the "paperwork," what exactly are you referring to? The application for insurance? Could the beneficiary on the policy have been changed by the policyowner without Rhonda's knowledge? They wouldn't have to get her permission to do that unless she was named irrevocably.
There's something inherently wrong here, the hair is standing up on the back of my neck... or that could be the stupid cat behind me. Seriously, you have to answer this question:
Why did the insurer say mom was getting paid instead of Rhonda? Again, was mom the primary and Rhonda the contingent beneficiary?
I can't think of anything else. Hey Max- if you're around, you got anything on this?
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 06:56 am Post Subject:
Does anyone know if the life insurance policy had a "short-term survivorship" requirement in it's provisions?
I would discount this, because it would only apply (1) if Mom and Dad were injured and died as the result of the same event, and (2) Mom would have to be the named beneficiary. I fail to see any indication of a "common accident" in the OP's posts. (And while 6 months is not impossible in a common accident provision, and the CA Probate Code requires a minimum of 120 hours (5 days), most such provisions use numbers like 14 or 21 or 30 days following the accident to still be considered a common death event.)
But I do have to agree with InsTeacher that the whole business, as stated, of Rhonda being named as beneficiary and the money only being payable to Mom is, at best, bizarre. Either something dreadfully wrong is being communicated here, or an insurance company is on the verge of committing a breach of contract in addition to more than one unfair claims practice in the same claim.
If the latter is true, I'd hate to be the insurance company's defense counsel on the case.
Here's my best guess as to what could be going on. Mom was in very ill-health at the time of Dad's death (the OP states she had been Mom's caregiver for some three years at the time of Dad's death -- although we don't know exactly why). Rhonda, with no malice in her heart or mind, simply put her own name on the claim form (the "paperwork") as the beneficiary believing it to be expedient in the face of Mom's illness or inability to reason or perform (wouldn't be the first time someone ever tried that approach). The intent was, legitimately, to get the money, be able to use it to pay Dad's funeral expenses, and then have something left over, perhaps, to help with Mom's personal expenses (only Mom has since died, and now there are her funeral expenses to deal with, too).
The claims examiner does his job, however, and searches the policy records, only to find that Mom is the primary beneficiary, and is protecting the insurance company by following the law and paying the claim to Mom as beneficiary (only now, at this late date, it it payable to her estate, because she was alive at the time of Dad's death, and because the claim is horribly late in being paid).
There is no explanation for why the claim was not paid back in May (June at the latest). That's what the CA Dept of Insurance needs to investigate. If the late payment now going to Mom's estate results in a loss due to all the foot-dragging on the insurer's part, that could easily be a cause of action for a civil suit against the insurance company for not paying the claim in a timely manner as required by the CA Insurance Code. Ought to be worth both specific damages (the actual monetary loss) and punitive damages for mishandling Dad's death claim so badly from the beginning -- that could end up being one of those two-comma checks most insurance bad faith lawyers only dream of winning.
Now I'd really not want to be insurance company's defense counsel!
Add your comment