value of claim

[empi]

California
We have a close friend. Her husband was killed in an auto accident. Insurance offered policy limits. There are two children involved. They are not her real children, they were his. When she married him, the two children were 4 and 6 years old and both children moved in with them because the husband won custody. One just turned 18 years old and the other is 20 years old. The 18 year lived her entire life with the family and after her father's death she has remained living with her step-mother. This daughter does not have a relationship with her real mother. She plans to move in with her step mother into a new home and attend college. Her dad and step mom promised support while in college. She depended on her dad to drive her to school and her part-time job.

The other daughter moved back with her real mom when she was 16 years old. Prior to moving back with her mother in Nev. she had a tumultuous experience with her father and the family. She falsely accused her father of domestic violence, attempted to obtain a temporary restraining order in her attempts to have herself given custody to her mother. The court denied her request, ordered her back with her father and also to attend school where she was registered. She then began sneaking out of the house, causing many problems and her father finally relented and let her move out and with her mother in Nev. Until only a few months prior to her father's fatal accident, she did not speak to him. She had recently quit a waitress job in Nev. and moved back to the area and they began speaking again and once in a while would meet for lunch.

This daughter now wants equal share of the policy limits. Is she entitled to an equal share as our friend who was married to this man for over 14 years? Is she entitled to the same amount of money as her sister who remained at home and still there? Also, our friend was/is the major bread winner. The father was a stay at home dad who worked part-time. There was no will and all the other insurance polices only named our friend as the sole beneficiary. How should the money be split. I say our friend gets the majority of the money, the 18 year old faithful daughter gets the second largest amount and the wayward daughter gets the least. I think that our friend should get 80%, the good daughter 15% and
the other daughter 5%. What do you think?
Thanks for your help.

 

[las365]

I think the division of the insurance proceeds is none of your business.

 

[empi]

gee thanks

I agree it is none of my business, but that is not the issue, rather attempting to get an opinion on division....whats up with the bad attitude....who peed in your Wheaties? If you are drinking coffee and on the computer, home alone...you need not wonder why.

 

[mmmagique]

If she is the sole beneficiary, she gets the money. If there are other beneficiaries on the policy it will spell out how the money is to be divided.

 

[ecmst12]

Personally I think that dividing the money in any other way then 3 ways equally is petty and callus. But it's none of my business either.

 

[empi]

thank you

It is a auto liability policy...not life insurance...it is a third party claim.
All three, the mom and two daughters have a claim and entitled to some money. How the money is divided is the issue....the value of the claim is based on the relationship...I am not intervening here...I am the investigator on the case....I have not and will not involve myself in the matter...just wanted to get an idea how a court would rule..curious that is all...armchair legal pundit.

 

[las365]

If she is the sole beneficiary, she gets the money. If there are other beneficiaries on the policy it will spell out how the money is to be divided.

It isn't a life insurance policy, it's a personal injury settlement. There is no named beneficiary.

OP's biases against the "bad" "not real" minor daughter and the "good" "not real" daughter in favor of the widow have no legal bearing on the division of the settlement. My personal view is the same as ecmst12's, but much depends on to whom the settlement is made payable (whether it goes through the deceased's Estate or straight to the wrongful death beneficiaries) and whether they can agree instead of fighting it out to the detriment of all in legal fees and court costs.

OP, you asked what people thought and I told you what I think. Live with it.

What do you mean, you are the "investigator"? You aren't doing your friend any favors by being an armchair legal pundit. She needs real legal advice from an attorney representing her interests, if that is what she wants.

 

[empi]

good point

But, the claims do have to be evaluated don't they? And to evaluate a claim, especially in this type of claim, evaluation is based on the relationship? The insurance carrier for the third party agrees with this manner to settle the claim....they have offered policy limits and are of the opinion that if the case were to be tried, the widow will receive the majority of the money and that residing daughter the second most amount of money....so I don't understand where you are coming from....also "Live with it"? I hope you don't have children or a wife....you seem to be a real joy to be around with..don't go kicking your pooch either because you can't stand yourself. You know, exercise is real good for people who are upset all the time...no, lifting a 40 oz 50 times a day is not exercise.

 

[las365]

Okay, let's try it this way.

You are so smart! And so the right person to make the determination of who should get what! That ungrateful 16 year old who lost her Dad should get little or nothing! Because you say so! Your friend should get everything! Well, the good not-real daughter should get something, but not much, just like you said. The insurance company of the at-fault driver is exactly who should advise your friend about who should get what portion of the money. Unless they disagree with you! Cause you are the bestest, smartest, investigatorest, armchair legal advisor EVAH!

That better?

By the way, you can continue to attempt to insult me personally. All I have to do is consider the source. No worries

 

[empi]

much better, but still

Your are absolutely correct, the insurance company should evaluate and render the decision. And that the "bad" daughter should get the least. The insurance company has attempted to negotiate and resolve the matter, but the "bad daughter" refused their $100,000.00 offer and as the result is holding up settlement for our friend the widow and the good daughter. As far as her father dying, a tragedy, she did not have a relationship with him prior to his death, and in fact was barley speaking to him. I think $100,000 is fair after falsely accusing her father of domestic violence in a court of law only a few years before.

In regards to you allegation that I think I am the best investigator etc.....I responded to your rude replies. If you are going to be rude, expect a response...and yes it is obvious, I am more intelligent than you are and also better mannered.

 

[ecmst12]

The "bad" daughter is entitled to just as much as the other two. She had a falling out with her dad as a teenager; she is just getting to the point in her life where she might have been starting to think about a reconciliation and now she will never get that chance. I didn't speak to my father for a good chunk of my 20s either, but we have an ok relationship now. A parent is a parent, period.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Good daughter, bad daughter, real daughter--whatever.

Either girl's claim is on the basis of being his daughter and neither girl is more his daughter or less his daughter regardless of hard feelings in the past.

 

[empi]

thank you

Very good points. I agree that they are both daughters and that the bad daughter will not get the chance to have the opportunity to rekindle the relationship...wonder what the judge will decide...will let you know...again thanks for the insight..
By the way, do you think the wife should get most of the money? She is in her late fifties, had never been married before and was married to this man for 15 years...would appreciate your thoughts.

 

[ecmst12]

Given that he wasn't supporting any of them financially, I think all three have an equal claim.