After John Balk died in a tractor rollover on his Scott County farm in 2010, his widow went to collect on the life insurance policy he'd bought from the National Rifle Association just 10 months earlier.The NRA refused to pay the $150,000 death benefit. It pointed to a rider on Balk's policy that said it didn't have to pay for "any death that is caused by or resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated."The widow, Annalee Balk, contends that her late husband's John Deere tractor is not a "motor vehicle" under Minnesota law, and that the NRA was wrong to deny the claim. She's taking the NRA to court.
I found it a bit surprising that the National Rifle Association sells life insurance policies to its members. I wasn't as surprised to learn that they try to chisel poor widows out of their payouts.
What's your opinion? Is that one shabby organization, or what?The NRA is primarily considered an advocacy group for gun owners, but it also sells and endorses insurance policies for members. The group's website says those who join get $5,000 in accidental death and dismemberment coverage with their $35 annual membership.The site says members can sign up for "new and enhanced insurance coverages through the NRA Endorsed Insurance Programs."
So driving drunk is OK? Starting to get a much clearer picture of your views Mike. Anything goes as long as guns get banned right.
ReplyDeleteThat's a ridiculous stretch from what I said. The post was about a shabby organization that hawks life insurance to its dupes and then tries to not pay out on a technicality.
DeleteIt is not the NRA that is refusing to pay, it is the insurance company. Insurance companies do not like to pay--its what they do.
DeleteI bet if the dude was driving the tractor down the road drunk he would be issued a DUI.
DeleteWas the man intoxicated while operating the tractor? I'd bet that many insurance companies have similar riders. By the way, Mikeb, how would you feel about him if he'd done something with a gun while under the influence? Do you see our point?
DeleteZOMG an insurance claim dispute that's so interesting and newsworthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteOh BS Mike. You tried to make the NRA look bad and picked a really crappy story to do it with. Almost all insurance policies are void if death was a result of driving drunk. Like Greg said if he had done something with a firearm while drinking you would crucify him.
DeleteThe NRA does look bad in this story. Insurance companies that refuse to pay on technicalities are low-rent. So's the NRA in this case due to its involvement.
DeleteI'm opposed to drunk driving and drunk everything else. That has nothing to do with it.
He was driving a tractor drunk and killed himself with it. Notice how the widow didn't dispute that? Just tried to say it wasn't a motor vehicle. If he had shot himself while drunk you'd be the first to point it out. Wow. Talk about two-faced.
DeleteIt's obvious to me that we need more tractor regulations.
Delete"mikeb302000June 11, 2012 11:15 AM
ReplyDeleteThat's a ridiculous stretch from what I said. The post was about a shabby organization that hawks life insurance to its dupes and then tries to not pay out on a technicality.
This is more restrictive than what you preach, "one strike and you're out", isn't that a good thing, since Mr drunken tractor driver might have been carrying a gun.
The widow, Annalee Balk should have read the policy in it's entirety and kept her drunkard of a husband from violating, "death that is caused by or resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated." clause of his insurance policy.....
And it is a technicality to deny her claim if the NRA found that the policy holder did not initial everywhere required when he purchased the policy.
Being a drunk driver is violating the terms of the contract.....