hiddenmuse (
hiddenmuse) wrote2005-02-08 11:29 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Insurance Geekdom - and Britney Spears!
Britney Spears - An Insurance Agent's Worst Nightmare
How *anyone* can forget arthroscopic surgery that was performed five years ago is beyond me. It's not like getting a tooth filled - arthroscopic surgery is serious, and leaves you incapacitated for at least several days.
Sigh. My prediction? She'll lose the case for withholding the information on her pre-existing condition (even if it was one month shy of the 5 year threshold ... it's still in the "within 5 years" category). In layman's terms? She willfully omitted information, in order to obtain the policy.
It's like telling your agent that you've had no accidents in 3 years, getting the coverage, having an accident, then the company finds out that you had an accident 2 years ago. Basically, she could be considered to have committed insurance fraud. *eg*
How *anyone* can forget arthroscopic surgery that was performed five years ago is beyond me. It's not like getting a tooth filled - arthroscopic surgery is serious, and leaves you incapacitated for at least several days.
Sigh. My prediction? She'll lose the case for withholding the information on her pre-existing condition (even if it was one month shy of the 5 year threshold ... it's still in the "within 5 years" category). In layman's terms? She willfully omitted information, in order to obtain the policy.
It's like telling your agent that you've had no accidents in 3 years, getting the coverage, having an accident, then the company finds out that you had an accident 2 years ago. Basically, she could be considered to have committed insurance fraud. *eg*
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.
no subject
no subject
Nice article find by the way! :)