McGee v International life insurance is a lawsuit that was brought by Raymond McGee against the International life insurance company. In the suit, McGee alleges the company did not pay out on benefits owed to him and his family following their deaths.
In late 2005, McGee lost his wife Crystal due to cancer and had two children with her: Kristofer who is deaf-blind and Cody who has Down syndrome. Following Crystal’s death, he contacted an International life insurance company to see if they would payout on a $100,000 policy he had as part of an employee benefits package so that he could take care of his children.
What is McGee v International life insurance?
McGee alleges that after his wife was diagnosed with cancer and subsequent death in 2005, he tried to contact the life insurance company for help but was worried about possibly violating a clause in his employment contract which said he would be punished if he spoke with anyone at work about the matter before contacting them.
In late November 2005, McGee contacted the company through their after hours number before making contact with any other member of staff at work. He had a discussion with a member of staff about the policy and was asked to provide his contact details and send in copies of necessary documents to verify that he was entitled to use it.
After three months, he called the company and asked why the payout had not taken place, and he was told that his wife’s death had not been verified yet. McGee contacted them again in March 2006 as it had been six months and both his children were living with him in a motor home. He was then told that they would be able to make payments but would have to wait until the following month.
On February 9, 2006, Crystal McGee died of cancer. And her death was verified by Raymond McGee on the same day. But he did not receive a payout until 2008. The children were put in the custody of the State while they waited for the insurance company to payout.
Patrick McGinty and his wife lost their daughter Crystal to cancer in 2005. When his wife died, they had two boys together. Patrick worked at an insurance company with a guaranteed life insurance policy that promised $100,000 to his family if he and his wife passed away before retirement age. After Crystal’s death was confirmed by her husband at her funeral, Patrick then contacted the insurance company for help with taking care of their kids.
McGee argued that he was entitled to the money under his policy, but the company denied it. The insurance company claimed it did not cover crystal’s death and Mr. McGinty did not give the necessary information to verify it.
After a lengthy trial of McGee v International life insurance, in 2009, the judge ruled against Mr. McGinty and his family because they did not prove that their insurance policy covered crystal’s death. In his decision, the Judge also said that “even if there was a dispute over whether Crystal’s death was covered by the insurance policy at issue…McGee did not prove that he had exhausted all other options before contacting an independent third party” after being instructed not to contact anyone at work about her death.
The judge also said that the company did not intentionally harm McGee. And concluded there was no reason for them to make a payout.
International life insurance “brought these claims based on the argument that Mr. McGee did not exhaust all his options before contacting an independent third party.”
So this is a good example of how a policyholder does have some rights in the situation. If they have enough evidence to prove that their policy would cover events. Like theirs, even if the company has denied it.
The McGee v International life insurance case is still controversial. Some believe that Mr. McGee was allowed to contact the life insurance company. But this does not appear to be the case from reading the judge’s decision. The real significance of this case though is that it gives policyholders who are in similar situations protection. As McGee v International has now made it clearer for people. Who have a policy like his that would cover their death that they can pursue justice. If they feel their rights have been wronged.
McGee v International life insurance made it clear that policyholders are in similar situations. Raymond McGee’s case can pursue justice if they feel their rights have been wronged.
This case also gives policyholders who are in similar situations protection. As McGee v International has now made it clearer for people. Who have a guaranteed life insurance policy like his. That would cover their death to pursue justice if they feel their rights have been wronged.
One of the main things Patrick and his wife did not do was provide any evidence. To back up the information they had given to the company initially.