@MarieIG wrote:
@Carmie wrote:
@MarieIG If your insurance policy already has the clause about experimental drugs and it was there when you purchase the policy. It would be a valid contract.
You and your insurance company would be subject to the terms and conditions of that contract.
The government and courts ( Insurance commission) could not over ride the contract if that clause was legal when the policy was purchased.
They could, however, make it illegal to sell life insurance with that clause. It would impact new policies and could possibly force insurance companies to add an addendum to existing policies to remove that clause, but would not impact policies fo those who already passed from the vaccine and were denied benefits.
Fortunately, people are not dropping over after receiving the vaccine. And let's hope that never happens. That is not a bridge we want to cross.
Just because a clause is in a document, does not make it a valid clause. Courts spend an inordinate amount of time making such determinations when viewed in the light of statute, common law, and public policy. However, if the validity of the clause were to be upheld, the applicability of the clause to the case at bar would need to be addressed.
In most venues (in the US) the carrier would have the burden of proof in support of a disclaimer of coverage under a life insurance policy, should the disclaimer be challanged in a court of law. It is entirely possible however, that the clause would be upheld; but the Court would hold that, "as a matter of law" the vaccines administered under the auspecis of the FDA - whether via EUA or otherwise, do not fit the definition of an "experimental drug" (in other words, not applicable) and the beneficiary under the policy would be entitled to collect the insurance proceeds.
You are correct - it is not a bridge we would want to have to cross.
@MarieIG
That's interesting. You wouldn't necessarily be looking at individual cases of insurance denial. It would more likely be Class Action issue. Also factor in that, you'd have to consider any precedents for such cases where insurers are sued for denying coverage. This a lot of "ifs."
We haven't reached that road yet. Hopefully, we never have to. Let's also consider other types of diseases that require vaccination and have the capacity to cause death: The flu vaccination. Are their any insurance policies written that state that if such a treatment were available and you chose not to take it and it resulted in death, would it void your life insurance policy? I don't know. I doubt it though. We are in unchartered territory.
Bottom line, is all of this, every bit of it will of course depend on your insurance policy. The legalities, nothwistanding, would need to reach precedent setting status before an insurer stopped paying a bunch of people for a clause in it or a policy lacking such a clause regarding Covid 19.
A Negative Mind ~ Will give you a Negative Life
Blogs & Forums
