Life Health Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Home-grown terrorists create insurance conundrum

Notify me of new replies via email
Life Health Professional | 02 Oct 2015, 08:15 AM Agree 0
The increase in radicalized Canadians fighting for ISIL and al Qaeda has raised a thorny question for advisors and carriers: Should the family members of those fighters collect on their life insurance?
  • | 02 Oct 2015, 12:42 PM Agree 0
    I know someone part of our armed services and no I don't want anything to happen to him. Any one who lays possible to hurt society in these ways is not entitled. Terrorist should not be able to benefit from their crimes nor their families.
  • Trevor | 02 Oct 2015, 01:02 PM Agree 0
    If an individual dies in the act of willfully commiting a violent crime, that should render any life insurance contract void. Acting on behalf of a terrorist group falls within this definition.
  • | 02 Oct 2015, 01:06 PM Agree 0
    Only if the applicant declared this hazardous activity on the app.
  • Simple Logic | 02 Oct 2015, 01:06 PM Agree 0
    The question is nearly identical to a question of whether the family of a murderer who is shot by police during his commission of the crime should be entitled to benefit from life insurance on the murderer's life; however, IMO, a terrorist should be granted significantly fewer rights and considerations than a common criminal. The terrorist could view the prospect of a life insurance benefit to his family as an "added fringe benefit". If he dies during his commission of a terrorist act, he would end up with 72 virgins and 70 virgin wives, each bringing another 70 virgin wives, to eternity (no, I'm not joking; some actually believe that), and the family would end up well taken care of at the expense of people who buy life insurance for its intended legitimate purposes. If anything, any insurance monies should be paid to the families of the victims or, if none can be identified, contributed to the fight against terrorism. The UN, in its corruption and moral turpitude, can go ahead and appoint Saudi Arabia (a monarchy with one of the worst human rights records on earth that sentences women to death by stoning for being the victims of rape) to head its "Human Rights Council" but we, as Canadians, shouldn't buy into that and treat terrorists for what they are.
  • Paul P | 02 Oct 2015, 01:25 PM Agree 0
    As much as I agree death due to criminal or terrorist act should void the contract. the current contracts are guaranteed unless fraud or suicide ( 2 years). existing contracts would most likely be held to be payable to beneficiaries, unless fraud regarding lifestyle can be proven.
  • Andrewski. | 02 Oct 2015, 02:30 PM Agree 0
    Contractual obligations of the insurer are to be followed, unless fraud at time of application can be proven.

    The rest is (unfortunately) opinion.
  • Chris Mellor | 02 Oct 2015, 02:35 PM Agree 0
    A contract is a contract...Standard non-forfiture limits apply. One could also look to the courts ruling on bankruptcy regarding creditor protection, which basically voids an attempt to knowingly avoid paying the creditors.

    Inocent third parties to the contract should not be harmed unless there is criminal or fraudulent intent.

    In the example: a mother who owns a policy on a child who later be comes a terrorist or or for that matter a home grown mass murders, will and should be paid.

    I would argue that an life insurance policy taken out in anticipation of becoming a terroist ... is null and void due to non disclosure and fraudulent intent. The fact that the industry has established the principal of upmost good faith demands that we pay unless we can prove fraudulent intent and/or mistatment during the contractual forfiture period.

    Coverage on terrorists could be a worry as a fund raiser for insurance proceeds to ISIS front organizations. Check out how to report a suspicious contract
  • Susan C | 03 Oct 2015, 08:43 AM Agree 0
    We have to follow the terms of the contract at the time of purchase. End of story.
  • Niki | 09 Oct 2015, 12:48 PM Agree 0
    This begs questions on the application. It also begs the questions as to how a person who is born free in the free world, gets sucked up into the anti-free world dogma, freely. Although I agree that it is disgusting that home grown Canadians are joining the terrorists and going to Iraq/Syria, we need to know more about how these people get brain washed. If someone was married and had two children, and then latter on, well after they had their insurance in force, they became brain washed and died doing terrorist activities as a result of the brain washing, the insurance that had been set up in earnest for the benefit of the spouse and children, that being denied, becomes a tragedy secondary to the terrorist activities. There is no metric to assess for whether someone is vulnerable to brain washing. However answering the question would or maybe could prevent people from becoming brain washed in the first place, and save hundreds of thousands of lives. It is one thing to understand something theoretically speaking, and quite another to deal with it in real terms. It also begs the question as to how someone can be judged after the fact, when at the time they were assessed by the underwriters, they were telling the truth. How can you assess for lying after the fact? Speaks to pre-meditation or none.
Post a reply