Companies Profit on Workers' Deaths Through 'Dead Peasants' Insurance

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday. April 19, 2002 | ELLEN E. SCHULTZ and THEO FRANCIS

[TroutStalker]

Felipe M. Tillman loved music -- opera, jazz, country. He played keyboards and drums, sang and was choral director at his Tulsa, Okla., church. To make ends meet, he worked at record stores, where "he could be close to the music," says his brother Anthony Tillman. One of those jobs was a brief stint in the early 1990s at a Camelot Music store.

[TroutStalker]

FYI.

[muir_redwoods]

Ok, So what? Any employer would also maintain liability insurance in case you got hurt on the job and wanted to sue them. Insuring an individual in whom they may have made considerable investment in training etc. would simply make good business sense.

All the law requires is a valid insurable interest. Many parents insure their childrens' lives and many people insure their ex-spouses.

I don't see a problem unless you're worried that the employer is going to assign risky work to someone so as to cause the death of their heavily insured employees.

[mikesmad]

What's the problem? The company paid the premiums and collected the insurance. If the company put the people into harms way to cause death then not only would they not collect the insurance but would be put out of business.

Why do the families that never paid a dime of the premiums feel like they were cheated? What about the millions that companies paid in life insurance and the employees had the gall to quit before kicking off? Maybe the families should be held responsible for paying some of that back.

[wardaddy]

this post is a better explanation than the last one two days ago...

[Mr. Bird]

The store's owner, Houston-based National Convenience Stores Inc., didn't participate in the state workers' compensation system, which provides death benefits to families of workers killed on the job. And like others that opt out, it had taken out insurance on its clerks to protect itself from the cost of wrongful death or negligence lawsuits arising from workplace deaths. The policy, from Lloyds of London, paid NCS $250,000. The company offered Mrs. Smith and her son, Brandon, one year old at the time, a payment of $60,000 to settle any potential lawsuits, she says.

Mrs. Smith, who was 18 at the time and still in high school, thought the company was just being nice. "It seemed like a lot to me," she says. When she later discovered that the company would receive about $250,000 from her husband's death, she was appalled. "I can't believe they would do such a thing and make money off people," she says. "It's wrong.

Very interesting. I would suggest everyone check to see if their employer paricipates in their state's Worker's Comp program, either as an insured or self-insured participant. If so, the death benefit is defined (i.e. 5,000 hours of wages), as opposed to this case where you have to sue the employer to get anything. As for her comment about being "appalled" that they would "make money off people", she clearly hasn't grown up much since then.

From a personal perspective, I think I'd like to know if someone, somewhere would benefit financially from my death. Seems to me that adequate disclosure is all that's required.

[fella]

I don't mind them taking out life insurance on me but I do object to be refered to by them as being a peasent as if I was a piece of their property.

[Squawk 8888]

I do object to be refered to by them as being a peasent

The phrase "dead peasant" was coined by the Left. Nice to know what liberals think of working people, eh?

[tdscpa]

Yes, the Wall Street Journal is much better than the Houston paper at explaining financial matters. Notice that they did not claim that the insurance premiums were deductible.

[chadmaster]

Bingo. I am not property owned, and any life insurance taken out on me ought to be with my consent only. This is not even the same as liability insurance in any way shape or form. This practice is repugnant.

[muir_redwoods]

I understand your feelings but the law, for as long as there has been life insurance, says all someone needs is an insurable interest. An ex-wife who is collecting alimony or someone to whom you owe money has sufficient insurable interest to buy life insurance on you and you have no right to know about it and your consent is unnecessary. That's the law.

[alfa6]

Bump for later and thanks Troutstalker. Any news on your brother, niece and new baby? I think I got that right.

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[chadmaster]

And my point is the law is wrong.

[muir_redwoods]

Sorry about the late response but why do you feel the law is wrong? You can bet on a team without the teams knowledge or consent, you can invest in a publicly traded company without their consent. Exercising your right to protect your financial interest through life insurance is simply good business. If you're important to someone else financially then they have a right to protect that interest.

If an employer has invested training dollars in you or hired you instead of another good candidate who might not be available if you die and leave the job vacant, then they have a right to protect themselves

For the life of me (ahem) I cannot fathom the nature of an objection to this practice. I can't even understand why this is of interest or in any way controvercial.

[muir_redwoods]

Sorry about the late response but why do you feel the law is wrong? You can bet on a team without the teams knowledge or consent, you can invest in a publicly traded company without their consent. Exercising your right to protect your financial interest through life insurance is simply good business. If you're important to someone else financially then they have a right to protect that interest.

If an employer has invested training dollars in you or hired you instead of another good candidate who might not be available if you die and leave the job vacant, then they have a right to protect themselves

For the life of me (ahem) I cannot fathom the nature of an objection to this practice. I can't even understand why this is of interest or in any way controvercial.

[Merdoug]

Now, now! Don't you know that big business LOVES you and only thinks of the welfare of it's peasen,...I mean employees? At least, that's what Rush is always saying! Never mind if they are all moving overseas to take advantage of slav,..I mean foreign labor or promoting the growth of illegal immigrants here,... Don't you know that all they care about is the "little people"? sarcasm off/