An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Michael Jackson, The Myth of the Sacrificial King

One Woman’s View on Mrs. Sanford »

SCOTUS Rules in Case of Widow Whose Husband Died of Yellow Fever

Posted by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Deputy Managing Editor, Columnist in Society.
Jun 26th, 2009 | Comments

In the case of Amelia Bennecke, Plaintiff vs The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, the widow, Mrs. Bennecke brought suit to recover $2000 on the life insurance policy of her deceased husband.

The insurance company had refused to pay because it said it warned Mr. Bennecke that his policy would be voided if he traveled south of the ‘limits of residence’ proscribed in the policy, namely to the city of New Orleans, where he promptly died of yellow fever.

the SCOTUS upheld the lower court which affirmed the right of the insurance company to withhold payment, in part because it appears the ‘permission given by the insurance company to Mr. Bennecke to travel south of the thirty-second parellel of latitude, was issued after he was already dead.

This may be interpreted by some, to mean all citizens must make sure they have all insurance waivers and documents signed and dated before arranging to unexpectedly expire.

Apparently the plaintiff’s husband’s ‘freedom of movement and assembly,’ and ‘pursuit of happiness’ was not a consideration in the SCOTUS decision.

The date of the SCOTUS decision is March 18, 1882.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Don Quijote

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

StockBoySF

This is the only thing I've read on this case. It appears that he entered into a policy with certain restrictions. He violated the restrictions. I'm not sure why there is a question why the insurance company should pay.

No one forced him to enter into the insurance contract. If he had an issue with the provisions then this is a free country and he could have gone to another company for a contract he liked.

By the way, I think it is an immensely silly policy. I could understand why an insurance company might have travel restrictions to other countries, but to limit travel within the US really does seem silly. But like it or not, he agreed to it.

Bottom line: I support the insurance company in keeping up their end of the deal- no money, Though you just know that they paid way more than $2,000 in legal fees.

EEllis

StockBoy- It was 1882

archangel

EEllis, I thought stockboy's reply was as though he was writing from a time warp...meant good naturedly, dear Stockboy, you are much enjoyed here at TMV.

In WordPress EEllis, it is sometimes hard to put spaces after the last line of an article. I swear some days you can, and some days... gremlins prevent it. Maybe in future 'blasts from the SCOTUS's past' I ought embolden the year of the decision... although man, I have to say, that reading the old old decisions, so much of it was about individuals getting paid... an army officer who said he wasnt paid in full, a 'coast guard' sailor who said he wasnt paid what he was told he'd be paid... et al. One of the interesting things is that those old old cases, are still held up as precedent in modern times. That too, dont you think, amazing?

Also Don Quijote, you hit it. Ins. cos now/ ins. cos then. Mismo, mismo.

dr.e

blog comments powered by Disqus