Payout denied after 18-year-old is shot

by Paul Lucas19 Feb 2016
A mother's plight after the devastating loss of her daughter has been made worse as she has been denied a life insurance payout.

Robin Pearl, 18, was shot dead while sitting in an SUV in Avondale, Ohio, last June. According to police, a man, names Joshua Maxton, simply walked up to the vehicle and began shooting.

Now her mother, also called Robin Pearl, has had further pain thrown on top of her mourning as she has been refused a life insurance payout due to a “technicality”.

Pearl believed that the insurance – worth around $25,000 with Cincinnati Life Insurance – could be something she could turn to. As such, she had spent many months looking for medical records and police reports to back up her claim.

Having maintained her payments she was shocked to discover that the life insurance payout had been denied.

The letter from the insurance company said that the payout was being denied as Pearl had inadvertently answered two questions incorrectly with regards to medical history. The company’s letter stated that the policy would never have been issued had they known about the medical treatment that the daughter had required. However, there was no specific issue mentioned.

Pearl is angry commenting that her daughter died due to a homicide and the company had gone “digging into the medical records to find whatever it is they found just to deny the claim.”

According to a spokeswoman for Cincinnati Insurance, no details could be shared about specific claims.

COMMENTS

  • by Lynda Weinrib 2016-02-19 5:24:39 PM

    I am curious as to whether - or not - a life insurance agent sold the mother this contract , or if she simply applied online or on the telephone. It would seem that the mother applied directly to the company, without an agent who would have asked more questions...... and would have fought forf the benefit to be paid.

  • by Brian Shumak 2016-02-20 3:19:34 PM

    It is more than simply whether an agent was or was not involved in the process. It also has to do with what sounds like an issue surrounding the contestability period of an insurance contract. In the first two years of a contract, the insurance company does not have to prove fraudulent intent just omission of evidence. If the policy was beyond the contestable period then the company should have paid out unless they can prove fraud. At least this would be the situation in Canada