• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    916 days ago

    “so we were going to award the life insurance payout for a murder, but since the shooter took time to inscribe the bullets as a type of manifesto, it’s now considered a terrorist attack and is not covered under our terms.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      416 days ago

      This is a legit argument. If the purpose of the killing is to intimidate other insurance companies, it’s terrorism, and almost all insurance companies have an exception for terrorist attacks.

      It’s also why we shouldn’t be as upset when mass-shooters aren’t called out as terrorists by law enforcement and politicians. There’s insurance implications.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        165 days ago

        I mean, we should be upset about that, just upset at the ridiculousness of the insurance to not pay the victims because of the specific views of the criminal.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          85 days ago

          But until the insurance problem is solved, it may be better for the victims of the families not to call it terrorism.

          They’re going through absolute hell. Last thing they need is an unexpected loss of a 6-figure insurance payment.