"EXPERIMENTAL" VACCINE NEGATES LIFE INSURANCE? - Page 8

MarieIG · ‎03-10-2010

Read your policy.

It doesn't make sense to me. Once a drug is approved by the FDA it would certainly not be an experimental drug.

Do the math.

Carmie · ‎10-25-2010

@MarieIG The COVID vaccines do not have a full approval from the FDA. There are some steps that have not been completed and they do not know the long term effects of them.

Because COVID is so dangerous and has killed many people, the FDA is allowing the drug to given without the full approval as an exception.

It normally takes years to get a new vaccine approved....this one was rushed and the FDA has their fingers crossed that it will be as safe and effective as they think it is. Only time will tell

Smeimes new drugs get full approval and down road, there are problems and they are pulled.

MarieIG · ‎03-10-2010

@Carmie wrote:
@MarieIG The COVID vaccines do not have a full approval from the FDA. There are some steps that have not been completed and they do not know the long term effects of them.

Because COVID is so dangerous and has killed many people, the FDA is allowing the drug to given without the full approval as an exception.

It normally takes years to get a new vaccine approved....this one was rushed and the FDA has their fingers crossed that it will be as safe and effective as they think it is. Only time will tell

With regard to life insurance policies; the Courts will not allow an insurance carrier to disclaim based upon an FDA approved drug. It would be found to be "against public policy."

Do the math.

Carmie · ‎10-25-2010

@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.

MarieIG · ‎03-10-2010

@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.

Do the math.

gertrudecloset · ‎02-13-2021

@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

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

In my experience, vast majority of people getting the vaccine are very well informed about the available information.

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@Lali1 wrote:
@Jaspersmom wrote:
I would think if this were true, it would be all over the news AND people would be up in arms (pun intended). AND is the vaccine considered "experimental?" I don't think so, but I don't know for sure. I'm headed to get my first dose in an hour so I'll ask.
Not sure that's true. They are desperate for people to get the vaccine so they may suppress this if it were true.

@Lali1

Who are the “they” you reference?

"Animals are not my whole world, but they have made my world whole" ~ Roger Caras

gertrudecloset · ‎02-13-2021

I also forgot to mention State jurisdictional issues. Insurance companies are bound and have to operate their businesses under each State's provisions. This why some states have more health insurers than others and so on. They are all the same when it comes to underwriting. Risk vs. reward.

A Negative Mind ~ Will give you a Negative Life

Drythe · ‎07-09-2011

@pitdakota wrote:
@Cakers3 wrote:
@pitdakota wrote:
@Tinkrbl44, I suspect this is an effort, among many to try and scare people away from taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

In fact, I suspect that once vaccination is readily available to the general population a life insurance company would be more likely to not cover a death related to COVID if the individual didn't take the vaccine. With the data that the vaccines prevent death, they could certainly claim that the policy holder refused treatment that could have prevented their death. Just depends.

At any rate, I would just not pay any attention to this. It would certainly not be a reason to refuse a covid-19 vaccine.

@pitdakota   Unless the policy specifically states that lack of a vaccination negates the benefit, I don't see how this would be legal.

Insurance policies are legal documents and clearly outline issues such as suicide.

Whether a COVID-19 vaccine, a flu vaccine, or any other medical treatment-it is still up to the person to decide what to take and what not to take.

I really would not like the COVID-19 vaccine to begin dictating our lives.

Besides, what if a person didn't have the chance to obtain the vaccine?

This story is all over the internet so we know it is not true, but it is an issue, to me, that is concerning IF it does become true.

I realize a rider could be sent out but that would go way beyond stifling a person's choice.

jmoymmv
__________________________________________________________

Hi @Cakers3, I totally agree. Just pointing out that if one is believes taking the covid-19 vaccine will negate your insurance policy it is really more likely to believe they would deny coverage if you didn't take the vaccine because it could have actually prevented your death. Both scenarios are non-issues.

I think people would be really surprised to know just how many medications, treatments, etc. are granted emergency use authorization for all different medical conditions, diseases, etc.

Even with just considering COVID-19, we have multiple medications and treatments that are currently being used that are available under emergency use authorization.  Currently the monoclonal antibody treatments are used under EUA.

Going by the premise that just because you might die while using something under an EUA negates an life insurance policy (because you know, it is still experimental) would also mean that anyone that received BAM or any other monoclonal antibody therapy would also negate their life insurance policy.

Just rumors circulating around the Internet that causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and concern.