Died from medical in air. Insurance denied as skydiving. Help?

[Feeblemind 1]

Quote

Everytime I deploy it is for self preservation.

Damn beat me to it

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

One more note, which is pretty crucial, although I'm going to say it diplomatically: the most reliable medical opinion comes from a doctor, and the most reliable legal opinion comes from a lawyer. (A couple of the posts in this thread compel me to say this.)

I'm neither, but I'm also of the school that every issue stands alone and many legal cases support that notion. Address a couple of my issues I've posted, I'd be interested to hear your take on them.

[Beachbum 0]

ditto for the one I ask in a reply to him

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Douggarr 6]

I was waiting for something like this to occur.

Even if the deceased landed under an open parachute and the cause of death was affirmed by a coroner/medical examiner that it was a heart attack or stroke, you will have a very difficult time fighting an insurance company with a claim. Even a specific exclusion -- if you die while skydiving -- would be hard to contest. The insurance company lawyer can argue that the jump itself contributed to the cause of death by inducing the stroke or heart attack (stress, etc.).

Think about it. Suppose it goes to a jury trial. It's a toss up. An objective juror would have to be convinced that the deceased would have died at that moment had he been sitting in a coffee shop.

Very tough call. Unfortunately, either way, it won't bring back Doherty.

SCR-442, SCS-202, CCR-870, SOS-1353

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I was waiting for something like this to occur.

Even if the deceased landed under an open parachute and the cause of death was affirmed by a coroner/medical examiner that it was a heart attack or stroke, you will have a very difficult time fighting an insurance company with a claim. Even a specific exclusion -- if you die while skydiving -- would be hard to contest. The insurance company lawyer can argue that the jump itself contributed to the cause of death by inducing the stroke or heart attack (stress, etc.).

Think about it. Suppose it goes to a jury trial. It's a toss up. An objective juror would have to be convinced that the deceased would have died at that moment had he been sitting in a coffee shop.

Very tough call. Unfortunately, either way, it won't bring back Doherty.

Juries are strange animals. I think a lot depends upon the language in the policy, the state laws and the willingness of the ins co to action this vs a partial settlement.

Died while skydiving, died as a result of skydiving? Again, these statements pose more questions than they answer. Either way, it will likely result in each party paying their own costs whichever way it ends, as neither side is being frivalous. Might as well action it if the ins co won't pay or settle. A lot depends upon the COD report, perhaps most of the case does. I would rather be the plaintiff against the ins co with today's climate, I think people have had enough of corporations and juries are people, usually people who are not wealthy.

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

One more note, which is pretty crucial, although I'm going to say it diplomatically: the most reliable medical opinion comes from a doctor, and the most reliable legal opinion comes from a lawyer. (A couple of the posts in this thread compel me to say this.)

Well one would hope the most reliable opinions would come from a professional in those fields. But their are doctors who misdiagnose and then there are lawyers who just plain suck or if they can't make a bunch of money then it's not worth their time and they won't want to deal with it.

I don't know that you will be able to do much about the medical side of things here but I would talk with more than one attorney. You're liable to get different opinions / advice.

One attorney might tell you that you don't have a prayer. Then another attorney may tell you if he can get the case in front of a jury that he has a good chance of winning.

Don't take just the word of one unless it's one that is ready to fight for you.

Most insurance companies will settle out of court because it is cheaper than to fight you and they have no guarantee that they will win. Juries can be funny things and you never know in a civil case, the burden of proof is not like it is in a criminal case. All it takes is a sympathetic jury and the insurance company is screwed.

My family's business is structured settlements / annuities (20+ years). One case we had last year involved a DUI driver who passed out, crossed the median on an Interstate, slammed head on into a big rig and killed himself. The truck driver was not in any way at fault but his insurance company settled with the deceased's family out of court for 300k because it was cheaper and a guaranteed thing. Going to court was not, especially if the jury pool ends up being poor to middle class folks who are tired of big companies making big money. I couldn't believe it. The guy was drunk and did it to himself yet the insurance company would have spent at least 300k walking into court so they settled out of court instead. My stubborn ass would have fought the family of the deceased on that one, but hey what do I know?

If I was a betting man I'd bet that you can find an attorney that at the very least will get the insurance company to settle out of court for an amount less of what the policy pays.

Bottom line find an attorney who will fight and drag the insurance company through the mud in the process. All he has to do is make it more expensive for them to fight than to settle. They will take the cheaper way out.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

One more note, which is pretty crucial, although I'm going to say it diplomatically: the most reliable medical opinion comes from a doctor, and the most reliable legal opinion comes from a lawyer. (A couple of the posts in this thread compel me to say this.)

Well one would hope the most reliable opinions would come from a professional in those fields. But their are doctors who misdiagnose and then there are lawyers who just plain suck or if they can't make a bunch of money then it's not worth their time and they won't want to deal with it.

I don't know that you will be able to do much about the medical side of things here but I would talk with more than one attorney. You're liable to get different opinions / advice.

One attorney might tell you that you don't have a prayer. Then another attorney may tell you if he can get the case in front of a jury that he has a good chance of winning.

Don't take just the word of one unless it's one that is ready to fight for you.

Most insurance companies will settle out of court because it is cheaper than to fight you and they have no guarantee that they will win. Juries can be funny things and you never know in a civil case, the burden of proof is not like it is in a criminal case. All it takes is a sympathetic jury and the insurance company is screwed.

My family's business is structured settlements / annuities (20+ years). One case we had last year involved a DUI driver who passed out, crossed the median on an Interstate, slammed head on into a big rig and killed himself. The truck driver was not in any way at fault but his insurance company settled with the deceased's family out of court for 300k because it was cheaper and a guaranteed thing. Going to court was not, especially if the jury pool ends up being poor to middle class folks who are tired of big companies making big money. I couldn't believe it. The guy was drunk and did it to himself yet the insurance company would have spent at least 300k walking into court so they settled out of court instead. My stubborn ass would have fought the family of the deceased on that one, but hey what do I know?

If I was a betting man I'd bet that you can find an attorney that at the very least will get the insurance company to settle out of court for an amount less of what the policy pays.

Bottom line find an attorney who will fight and drag the insurance company through the mud in the process. All he has to do is make it more expensive for them to fight than to settle. They will take the cheaper way out.

Is that what you would do, or you hoped your family would do?

Remster

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

Is that what you would do, or you hoped your family would do?

No doubt that is what I would do.
As far as my family if it were I who was deceased:

I would want my family to do what they felt necessary to survive without me.

Fortunately I have had life insurance since the early 80's and it covers everything including suicide which isn't an issue but it's in there. It even has a double indemnity clause that states it pays double if my death is the result of an accident. I spent 4 years on an aircraft carrier and my family pretty much insisted on it.

This person obviously is interested in / needs the life insurance money or they wouldn't be posting about it.

The life insurance money will not bring the person back. But it could be the difference between struggling to pay the bills and not struggling to pay the bills. Not only have they lost a loved one but they have lost the income this man provided as well.

Kudos for this man having life insurance, it shows he was looking out for his family.

A lot of people don't even have life insurance, can't afford it.

The other option is if his employer withheld taxes and Soc Sec from his paycheck and he was considered a full time employee and not someone under contract. Then I guess they could claim a work related death and go after worker's comp for their state. But that would also hurt the DZ because most states make the employer share the expense on any worker comp claims or they make them carry worker's comp insurance. So they either share the expense or pay higher premiums. Either way the DZ owner suffers. NOT WHAT I WOULD WANT TO SEE. DZ's struggle enough as it is. These big insurance companies should pay. They have collected millions for years on end, and in some cases have squandered away their profits and now our gov't is bailing them out with our tax money.

Personally I would rather see my tax money go to pay out on this man's life insurance policy than to see a company that has taken bailout money spend it on their execs like we have seen with some companies such as AIG.

On another note I know some people are paying higher premiums for insurance, health and / or life because they skydive.

I also know that those premiums are usually higher than what a smoker pays. Yet how many people die from lung related diseases and or cancers every year because they smoked cigarettes vs # of fatalities a year in skydiving?

Yet when these people die from smoking the insurance companies still payout.

Man dies earning a living vs man dies because he smoked.

Doesn't quiet seem fair when you look at it that way does it?

And by the way I quit smoking in February after 20+ years and I could still wind up dying from something related to smoking.

[Remster 24]

Cool.

I think myself and quite a few other jumpers would like to know your full name so we can avoid jumping with you like the plague.

If you'd want your family to go after innocent parties that were there when you went in, I don't want you in the sky with me.

Remster

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

Cool.

I think myself and quite a few other jumpers would like to know your full name so we can avoid jumping with you like the plague.

If you'd want your family to go after innocent parties that were there when you went in, I don't want you in the sky with me.

Whoaa there buddy. See it's idiots like you that need to stay out of the air. You obviously can't read.

I never once said one word about going after innocent parties that were there when he went in.

We were talking about insurance companies.

You are either a complete idiot or another one of those lame nuts that have nothing better to do with their time than start crap on DZ.com by trying to put words into my mouth that just aren't there.

When I referred to my family doing what ever it took that was in reference to getting the insurance company to pay off on the life insurance, nothing more, nothing less.

I wondered how long it would take someone to start crap. Not long, typical dz.com BS

So Remster go ream yourself

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Cool.

I think myself and quite a few other jumpers would like to know your full name so we can avoid jumping with you like the plague.

If you'd want your family to go after innocent parties that were there when you went in, I don't want you in the sky with me.

Whoaa there buddy. See it's idiots like you that need to stay out of the air. You obviously can't read.

I never once said one word about going after innocent parties that were there when he went in.

We were talking about insurance companies.

You are either a complete idiot or another one of those lame nuts that have nothing better to do with their time than start crap on DZ.com by trying to put words into my mouth that just aren't there.

When I referred to my family doing what ever it took that was in reference to getting the insurance company to pay off on the life insurance, nothing more, nothing less.

I wondered how long it would take someone to start crap. Not long, typical dz.com BS

So Remster go ream yourself

Chill d00d...it's the Internet!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

Chill d00d...it's the Internet!

LOL, amen to that.

It's more than just the Internet, it's dropzone.com - the original home to someone here will twist your words faster than you can get a line twist.

I really shouldn't expect any less.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

When I referred to my family doing what ever it took that was in reference to getting the insurance company to pay off on the life insurance, nothing more, nothing less.

But you use an example of liability insurance for your story. It's easy for people to get confused based on your example. Liability insurance companies have a different situation than life insurance companies. Suing a life insurance company over something that is specifically excluded in a contract is likely go get nowhere fast.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

Suing a life insurance company over something that is specifically excluded in a contract is likely go get nowhere fast.

Yeah it's touchy for sure. Juries can be funny, insurance companies can be funny, state laws can be funny. Lot of if's and in there. They definitely need a good lawyer.

I'd give anything if they could prove it was a heart attack, sure would make it simpler for them.

[Lucky... 0]

Actually most DZ's hire staff as independent contractors, so workman's comp isn't really an issue.

[Lucky... 0]

We don't know teh exclusion's language and we don't know teh COD, so it's all speculation. IF he died from a heart attack before he hit the ground, or it could be professionally believed he would have died if he were sitting in his living room while teh heart attack occurred, the COD is medical, not skydiving.

Ever watch a trial? They are all over the place at times and the outcomes are unpredictable at times. I'm not advocating insurance fraud, but let's see the COD and go from there. I do have a slant against ins co's tho, they are there to collect premiums but look for an angle to avoid payment as a first resort.

As with most issues, when you answer 1 question you raise 3 more, this is no different.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Suing a life insurance company over something that is specifically excluded in a contract is likely go get nowhere fast.

Yeah it's touchy for sure. Juries can be funny, insurance companies can be funny, state laws can be funny. Lot of if's and in there. They definitely need a good lawyer.

I'd give anything if they could prove it was a heart attack, sure would make it simpler for them.

OK, let's say it was a heart attack, was the onset of it caused by adrenaline as he left the acft? Or would it have happened watching internet porn? Was it in the cards as a time-is-up thing? See, we raise several questions as we try to answer 1. But I agree with you that this case isn't as easy as: He died with a parachute on; it must be a skydiving accident. These cases are interesnting, many cases in the law are more cut-n-dried, this one needs much investigation. I do think the ins co should partially pay, based upon what we now know. But if I learned of more strict exclusionary language it might change things.

As a point, if it's a massive, and it occurred regardless of the dive, and it occurred while at a hospital under a known code blue, I think many/most times it is irrecoverable. So if that was teh case, it wasn't a skydiving accident, but a medical accident. Hell, even the data that is maintained by skydivers has a classification for medical rather than a legitimate skydiving-related death. That ahole who jumped from that Jersey 182, was that a skydiving accident or a suicide? If he had a chute on and intentionally disabled it, would that make it a skydiving accident? The Brittish guy that killed himself a couple years back, pulled the handles and made it look like murder, was that a murder, a suicide or a skydiving accident?

So we have a ton to learn of the details and a ton of interpretation to do as well.