Y'know, I really hope she doesn't get out of it just because she's a celebrity. I hate her.
I don't know how they'd do on proving Fraud, as it might be difficult to prove that she willfully omitted it, though I'm sure she did. However, the only one who knows for sure is she, so unless they can get someone to come forward saying that she was discussing the pre-existing condition close to the time she filled out the application, then she won't get hit for fraud.
And in all honesty, it might be an 'innocent omission', at least on the part of the person who actually omitted it. I mean, she probably didn't talk to the companies herself. She has lawyers and assistants to do that for her, and they might not have known about something that happened 5 years earlier, you know?
However, most policy language reads that it's only valid if the material represented within is correct. If they found out it wasn't correct, then no coverage is provided. So she shouldn't get paid.
no subject
I don't know how they'd do on proving Fraud, as it might be difficult to prove that she willfully omitted it, though I'm sure she did. However, the only one who knows for sure is she, so unless they can get someone to come forward saying that she was discussing the pre-existing condition close to the time she filled out the application, then she won't get hit for fraud.
And in all honesty, it might be an 'innocent omission', at least on the part of the person who actually omitted it. I mean, she probably didn't talk to the companies herself. She has lawyers and assistants to do that for her, and they might not have known about something that happened 5 years earlier, you know?
However, most policy language reads that it's only valid if the material represented within is correct. If they found out it wasn't correct, then no coverage is provided. So she shouldn't get paid.