Elderly pair to stand trial for alleged murder of homeless men for insurance money

I’ve written a few times before about the two elderly L.A. women who allegedly killed two transient men after providing them with a home and taking out multiple insurance policies on them, some of which they collected on.  Here is the latest story on the two women, who have been ordered to stand trial.  Back in my crime reporting days, I met and interviewed killers who were more crazy or bloodthirsty or proficient, but something about these alleged murderers gives me a chill that none of the killers I met did.  To think of taking someone into your life for a couple years while you wait for the two-year incontestability period to expire, and then running them down in cold blood to boost your income — well, it would take a true stone killer to pull that off.  I’m also amazed by how easy it was for them to get millions of dollars in life insurance on these men, and I’m even more amazed that they got paid $2.8 million in insurance money, although some policies apparently did not pay because of ongoing investigations into the suspicious circumstances.  Here’s a link to a prior post

2 Comments

Filed under Industry Developments

2 Responses to Elderly pair to stand trial for alleged murder of homeless men for insurance money

  1. Ted

    “Bad faith” insurance is in such a state in California that it takes pretty convincing suspicions of fraud before an insurance company would dare challenge payment on a policy. The case of Rex DeGeorge comes to mind.

  2. Quite true, besides having first-party bad faith, which we don’t have in Oregon, California has other standards that favor the insured, such as use of the “reasonable expectations” doctrine. In its pure form, the doctrine is nothing more than an invitation for judges to overturn policy language that is not even ambiguous. Michigan used to use the reasonable expectations doctrine, and one case that was fairly frequently cited on the question of whether “damages” includes underlying attorney fees, was called City of Ypsilanti which was a particularly standout example of the reasonable expectations doctrine. Since then, Michigan has repudiated the doctrine, over a dissent that said that unfairness, deception and tyranny would now rule the land.