Timeline for Did the people who jumped from the World Trade Center during 9/11 lose their life insurance policy due to committing suicide?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2020 at 0:18 | vote | accept | George Clooney In a Mooney | ||
| Aug 6, 2020 at 1:25 | comment | added | Tom | I contend that very few of the people seen falling from the towers voluntarily jumped. The way those buildings were built meant that anyone standing at those windows trying to get air would be in an extremely precarious position leaning out of a floor-to-ceiling window with little to hold on to. Add the fact that they may have been suffering from smoke inhalation and that there may have been other people behind them trying to get to the same window. I would bet the majority of them simply fell accidentally. | |
| Aug 5, 2020 at 12:16 | comment | added | Ne Mo | I remember the airplane passengers who died were directly compensated by congress. Whether this extended to the occupants of the buildings, I don't know. If so they probably would not get life insurance payouts in addition to same. You can usually only claim things once even if covered for them twice; e.g. if you book a holiday on the ferry, and they cancel the ferry, the ferry company should refund you. Even if you have travel insurance which covers it, you can't get a second refund from your insurance company. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 16:59 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Perhaps the Law site would be better for this? Different people have different life insurance policies. Some policies specifically don't pay out for death due to terrorism or war. Also almost half of Americans have no life insurance at all. So whether this was an issue surely varied from person to person. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 14:06 | answer | added | Brian Z | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:10 | comment | added | Jurp | I would think that denying an insurance payout to a victim of a terrorist attack due to the victim's committing suicide rather than burning to death would have been, as they say in politics, EXTREMELY bad optics. Any payout would have been much cheaper than the revenue lost due to the immediate bad press that would have ensued. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:08 | comment | added | MCW♦ | I would start with summaries like iii.org or propertycasualty or jstor. Neither specifically address this question, but might serve as a starting point. [this] suggests that the cause of death on the death certificate would be the grounds for claims processing | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:06 | comment | added | MCW♦ | Welcome to History:Stack Exchange. Thank you for your question; please consider revising it to be more in line with our community expectations. Like many other stacks, we expect questions to provide evidence of prior research. That helps us to understand the question, and avoids our repeating work you've already done. Our help center, and other stacks provide additional resources to assist with revisions. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:02 | comment | added | George Clooney In a Mooney | @SteveBird I think it would definitely be argued in court. I can see a ton of points from both sides, but it would be a low blow to the family. And knowing insurance companies, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:00 | comment | added | Steve Bird | I imagine that the lawyers acting for their estates would have stated that remaining in the building was certain suicide so jumping was their only chance to escape that fate (even if the chance of survival was almost zero). | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 12:55 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 4, 2020 at 13:02 | |||||
| Aug 4, 2020 at 12:50 | history | asked | George Clooney In a Mooney | CC BY-SA 4.0 |