Stupid "Beneficiary" Tricks

They say that the difference between comedy and tragedy is time. I would add "and common sense," as well:



"The suspect in the case of a Maryland woman who disappeared in Aruba took out an insurance policy before heading out on the trip"



Now, it's possible that the missing woman also took out a policy on Mr Giordano, but of course our press is too wrapped up in the story of the moment to check out this rather obvious point.



The perp Mr Giordano made a rather interesting choice in policy design, as well, opting for the "accident only" plan rather than one which might have required additional underwriting. The article mentions that he chose "the pricier one-year plan instead of a cheaper, five-year policy," which of course makes no sense unless they're comparing a "regular" term policy with the accident-only plan, thereby completely contradicting themselves in the process.



Of course, buying a large, non-underwritten plan in anticipation of an "accident" is itself rather poor judgement: after all, one is forbidden to profit from one's crimes in this manner. More critical, of course, is that if it's an accident-only policy, and there's no body, then there's no way to prove how (let alone if) the victim died, thereby neatly letting the insurer completely off the hook.



For now, anyway.



Prof James Moriarty this guy ain't.