Husband of missing Modesto woman lied about girlfriend, family says

Modesto Bee ^ | 1/17/03 | Jim Wasserman

[muggs]

I think it was Iwo Jima that said murder is considered an accident by insurance companies because the victim did not intend to be murdered. It is somewhere in this long, long thread.

[muggs]

Please be sure to ping me with any new info, I'm leaving for the gym. I have cabin fever after being cooped up for two days with temps near zero. I would be totally nuts by now without FR to keep me busy.

[STOCKHRSE]

LQQK: Do not think he said...but he did say SP got off at
a couple of exits and caught up with him again....as far as the miles he said 80 and truckers usually watch miles very closely:-)...IMO they will find her in a place well known
to SP- VERY WELL KNOWN....in FACT HE WILL PROBABLY PASS VERY CLOSE TO THAT PLACE TODAY ...on his way to LA you know..

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, it would, Plat. In fact, assuming it was Scott who was the purchaser, it would be a contract btw him and the insurer. Any alternate beneficiaries would not even be a party to the contract. They'd just be someone named to collect the benefit should Scott (the primary beneficiary) predecease Laci.

AnAmericanMother, who does or has done insurance defense work, is confident that there's no way Scott would get either the insurance proceeds, or any inheritance from Laci.

If you look at the topic of "Slayer's Statutes" you will find pretty much the same conclusion. Sometimes there are loopholes as to inheritance by the murderer, but most states' laws have closed up such loopholes.

OF COURSE, we still don't know for sure whether Scott killed his wife and child. All this is just speculation and opinion.

You know, jdontom said that a trucker reported seeing Scott on the road around the time Laci disappeared, and reported seeing a brunette woman with shortish hair hanging over her face, sort of slumping in the front seat of Scott's truck. And last night, someone said they had heard that the blood from the kitchen floor was only small flecks or drops.

Doesn't that make it sound like maybe poison was used? If so, what a horrible way to go.

[Iwo Jima]

No, I don't know where California stands on this point, although at one time I read a 50 state survey of laws on this subject and there were only minor variances from state to state as I recall (of course, a "minor" variation can mean a lot when applied to the right factual situation).

There are always going to be gray areas, and whether or not a particular death was accidental will ultimately be determined by what the jury decides. I cannot imagine any jury ever letting an insurance company off of the hook by holding that murder is not an accident. The judge is going to give the jury instructions of key terms so that any misunderstanding about that would hopefully be quickly cleared up.

[Iwo Jima]

I have seen far too many examples of exactly what you are describing. If it makes you feel any better, the insurance companies hate these cases, too. For one thing, they hate having to pay out on a claim which actuarily shouldn't have occured and wasn't factored into their rates. They also hate life insurance being misused so that it becomes the cause of someone's death instead of a way to alleviate the financial stresses caused by death.

We could explore the concepts of insurable interests and a key tenet of life insurance that one not be drastically overinsured (worth more dead than alive) and how these COLI (company owned life insurance) or "dead peasants" policies violate those principles, but I suspect that most everyone else on the board would be bored senseless.

[Devil_Anse]

Well actually, a couple of the people on here who apparently really knows this insurance stuff is An American Mother, who did insurance defense work, and Iwo Jima, who worked in the industry. Compared to them, I know nothing on the subject.

You know what caused me to wonder, in the first place, was something that had little to do with this case: those "Son of Sam" laws. Those were laws that were made to prevent a murderer from profiting from the crime by, say, writing a tell-all book. Many of those laws were struck down, leaving it possible for some murderers to indeed make a buck off their crimes. But there was a free speech issue in those cases that wouldn't be present in this stuff about insurance proceeds and inheritance--so it was different.

I wish it were possible to keep murderers in prison from selling trinkets to idiots and making lots of money. I think Gacy did this. And SOMEONE (don't know if it's Charlie) is making bucks off Manson online. It's truly sickening.

But then, if we have people in the world who are stupid enough to do things like marry Ted Bundy while he was in jail, and later have a child with him, we've certainly got suckers who are dumb enough to buy trinkets from killers.

[Devil_Anse]

Thank you for pointing out that while the law generally would not support a horrible concept like a murderer benefitting from the victim's death, it is never a foregone conclusion that something quirky won't happen!

When one comes down to looking at a specific case, there are always certain things which will vary. And some people, as you found out, will indeed be brazen enough to just go right to court and sue to collect the proceeds of their dirty deed--causing innocent people to have to spend money to prevent this unjust result.

BTW, your incident you related got me thinking of something--maybe there was a hired killer in this case.

[RGSpincich]

New Thread

[pbear8]

I was confused about the day I took the picture. I had thought about going down Mon, 1-13, but couldn't until Tues, 1-14. I took the picture in the forenoon and couldn't download it until that evening as Captain PBear was messing with the computer. By the time I was able to post it, it must have felt like a whole day had passed.

I got it the 14th, lost my $5.00 and posted it the same day.

The machine must give tickets (receipts) for the day you pay it until that same midnight.

Sorry for the confusion. - Admiral PBear (she BTW)

[RGSpincich]

Thanks pbear8.

[nicmarlo]

murder is considered an accident by insurance companies because the victim did not intend to be murdered

Okay; that makes sense, as far as the victim is concerned....

[Enough is ENOUGH]

That was a good idea. I wonder whether LE checked out the possibility of a time stamp difference. A discrepancy in the date or even a matter of a few hours difference between actual and stamped time would have made a major impact in the case.

I wonder what the time stamp on SP's ticket reads and how it relates to the time and location where the trucker believes he saw him (with his dead wife in the car).

[nicmarlo]

We could explore the concepts of insurable interests and a key tenet of life insurance that one not be drastically overinsured (worth more dead than alive) and how these COLI (company owned life insurance) or "dead peasants" policies violate those principles, but I suspect that most everyone else on the board would be bored senseless.

And, I have a feeling, we'd possibly get into a heated debate, because now we'd be talking about the imposition of the "value" of a life and his/her potential to improve her/his economic circumstances over the otherwise expected life, etc., if you know what I mean.

[nicmarlo]

maybe there was a hired killer in this case.

hmmmmm....if so, then why is SP so unwilling to talk? I mean, he could easily say "he" did nothing to his wife, he knows nothing about where she is, etc., and be telling the truth (in his own mind), because he could have told "somebody" he wants to know "nothing."

[STOCKHRSE]

Nic:
If i die of a heart attack is it an accident according to an ins co cause i didn't intend to have a eart attack...:-)

Death by gunshot can be an accident, but homocide is never
considered an accident when paying off an "accidental death"
benefit. The Policy pays the "death benefit" only in the case of homocide and then only if the beneficary is not involved.
...has tere ever been an exception????..maybe so...but that is what it is an exception:-)

[Scupoli]

Without driving it, I would generally agree it would take about 3 hours. From Modesto to the Chowchilla/152 turnoff--about an hour and fifteen; down the 152--about an hour to San Luis Res.; a little time there; then up to Berkeley. I think he would take I 5 though up the west side of the Valley. Without actually doing this and timing it, I can only guess how long it would take. But, if he left around dawn, the trucker would have had enough light to see into the car (Laci) and keep an eye on Scott on the road. Three hours or so would put him in Berkeley around 9-9:30ish. I think that's the time supposedly on the time stamp.

[runningbear]

I remember some of those you mentioned but from other students stayed away from taking classes from them. Yeah, SJSU was well worth my time, and then some, but had to stop being a professional student and be a professional worker....lol.. Loved the internship I did with SJPD... Truancy Abatement program with crime prevention. Great learning aspects from it.

At the time I was to graduate, that is when the idiot Clinton came to town campaigning, and I saw a fragmented look at him. I was to busy talking to SJPD buddies I knew there at that stint so my attention span wasn't in all the hoopla on seeing bozo.....

[KneelBeforeZod]

yeah everyone who had Baroody(-hart) said she was absolutely horrible.

I was there when clinton was president. I remember all the clinton fans waiting at mcdonalds (the new art deco one at the edge of campus) and he never showed. haha suckers.

also when Dukakis was on campus, my buddy went over with a BUSH sign and some punk jumped him and ripped it down. as the dirtbag ran, some other stupid liberals held him down. I wish I was there.

[Marysecretary]

Thanks, Kim. I appreciate your updates.