Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (R. Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: life insurance and disconnecting life-support devices
Message-ID: <724@burl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 17:17:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.724
Posted: Mon Jun  3 17:17:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Jun-85 05:38:28 EDT
References: <616@wanginst.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 24

> 	 My question is this:  suppose that the courts rule that he can be
> 	 disconnected.  If he has life insurance, will the company pay up?
> 	 The reason I think it is open to debate is that I believe that
> 	 life insurance policies exclude pay-off for 'suicide'.  If the
> 	 courts allow disconnection because the man would have wanted it,
> 	 might this be construed as suicide?
> 
> 	 Delving further into the gray area of debate, what if the reason
> 	 for the man's coma was that he attempted to commit suicide?  (In

a) No, not if there is a living will.  I am going to draw one up shortly
for that very reason, also to make sure that my family does not spend
a whole lot of money to bury me somewhere or haul my body back to Alabama.
If there is not a living will, it could get VERY sticky.

b) If the reason for the man's coma is an attempted suicide, and the 
insurance does not pay for suicides, then the insurance should not pay.
Just as in cheating on taxes or running a red light, "You lays yo'
bets an' then yo' takes yo' chances."
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj