I was recently on the train, coming back to Groningen from giving a guest lecture at Radboud University in Nijmegen, when I got a phone call from my credit card company; whether I was interested in accident insurance. It was a Friday, I was tired, and the first month would be a trial, so I said fine. If nothing else it would give me the chance to look over the policy and see what it would actually get me. Turns out it was a good thing I did, because reading it gave me a good laugh. In the clause dealing with when my next of kin would get money in case I died, it said the following:
Did you, or another insured party, get into an accident and die as a result of it?
('Heeft u, of een andere verzekerde, een ongeval gehad waaraan u bent overleden?')
That's right, the policy asks the reader whether s/he is dead. I clearly cannot answer yes, as it is particularly hard to read the policy from beyond the grave. Now maybe the insurance company believes in an afterlife, but let's ignore that option, because even if they did, how am I supposed to tell my family what to do. It's not like they regularly visit a medium.
But note that there is a second fluke in this sentence, and that one is even more funny. The way it is phrased another insured party could have gotten into an accident resulting in my death. Talk about injustice! My hypothetical partner loses control over her vehicle, crashes into a truck, and suddenly I drop dead in front of a group of colleagues during a lecture on another continent. It's just as well that the policy does not cover intent, because otherwise a malicious partner could decide to take my life in some indirect way claim the payment, and not be convicted for either fraude or murder.
The point of the sentence is obvious enough. The insurance company was probably trying to make it easier to read the policy. God knows that most people don't go through the terms and conditions of Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. But they seem to have gone a bit overboard in making an active text. And the lack of care does not bode well for the company itself.
Did you, or another insured party, get into an accident and die as a result of it?
('Heeft u, of een andere verzekerde, een ongeval gehad waaraan u bent overleden?')
That's right, the policy asks the reader whether s/he is dead. I clearly cannot answer yes, as it is particularly hard to read the policy from beyond the grave. Now maybe the insurance company believes in an afterlife, but let's ignore that option, because even if they did, how am I supposed to tell my family what to do. It's not like they regularly visit a medium.
But note that there is a second fluke in this sentence, and that one is even more funny. The way it is phrased another insured party could have gotten into an accident resulting in my death. Talk about injustice! My hypothetical partner loses control over her vehicle, crashes into a truck, and suddenly I drop dead in front of a group of colleagues during a lecture on another continent. It's just as well that the policy does not cover intent, because otherwise a malicious partner could decide to take my life in some indirect way claim the payment, and not be convicted for either fraude or murder.
The point of the sentence is obvious enough. The insurance company was probably trying to make it easier to read the policy. God knows that most people don't go through the terms and conditions of Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. But they seem to have gone a bit overboard in making an active text. And the lack of care does not bode well for the company itself.
RSS Feed
