Welcome to FC&S Legal's first Insurance Coverage Law Quiz! Below are summaries of five cases discussed recently in the Case Law Developments column of FC&S Legal involving claims by widows for insurance benefits. Decide whether the widows won, or whether they lost. Answers appear Tuesday. Good Luck!
* * *
1. The Classic Car Coverage Case
The widow's husband died in an auto accident and she sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits under a limited-use classic car policy that provided coverage for one of the deceased's cars – but not the one he was driving when he died.
The widow argued that the policy's “household exclusion” violated public policy.
How did the court rule?
* * *
2. The Motorcycling Soldier Case
The widow of an active-duty soldier who died in a weekend motorcycle accident while off base and not on duty sought to recover life insurance benefits.
The insurer denied the claim, relying on a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for active members of the military.
How did the court rule?
* * *
3. The Navy SEAL Suicide Case
A retired Navy SEAL committed suicide by shooting himself in his head. His widow claimed benefits under a supplemental life policy.
The insured denied the claim, relying on the policy's suicide exclusion.
The widow argued that her deceased husband had lacked the mental capacity to commit suicide.
How did the court rule?
* * *
4. The Insurable Interest Case
After her husband died, a widow substituted herself in place of him as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy. The insured died and the widow claimed the proceeds of the policy.
A court ruled that the widow did not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured either when the policy had been issued or at any time thereafter and, therefore, that she was not entitled to the proceeds.
The dispute reached the Alabama Supreme Court.
How did the court rule?
* * *
5. The Allegedly Negligent Auto Repair Case
A widow argued that an auto dealer's negligent repair of her husband's car had led to his death – more than three years later. She argued that the policy in effect in favor of the dealer at the time of the repair covered her claim.
The insurer denied coverage, contending that the “occurrence” date – which it deemed to be the date of the accident – fell outside the policy period.
How did the court rule?
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].