Life Insurance

[Politigal]

Reviewing older articles again...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/02/lkl.01.html

CLAY: Well, I haven't heard specifically about life insurance. The chief may know a little more. I mean, the ex-wife was helpful during the investigation. She still lives in the area and she appeared during one of the news conferences as well. So, she has been part of the situation with the police.

KING: Chief, any insurance questions here?

DIXON: There is two ex-wives. We have looked into those situations. I really don't want to go into great detail as far as the financial aspect on the family side there. But that situation has been looked into. At this time, we don't see any issues.

Dixon didn't see any issues....but sure didn't want to divulge any info with regard to life insurance.

IMO, it's possible there could be 1 or more policies and/or beneficiaries - including ex-wives, and daughter Lara and Patty Fornicola.

[sherrijean981]

Reviewing older articles again...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/02/lkl.01.html

CLAY: Well, I haven't heard specifically about life insurance. The chief may know a little more. I mean, the ex-wife was helpful during the investigation. She still lives in the area and she appeared during one of the news conferences as well. So, she has been part of the situation with the police.

KING: Chief, any insurance questions here?

DIXON: There is two ex-wives. We have looked into those situations. I really don't want to go into great detail as far as the financial aspect on the family side there. But that situation has been looked into. At this time, we don't see any issues.

Dixon didn't see any issues....but sure didn't want to divulge any info with regard to life insurance.

IMO, it's possible there could be 1 or more policies and/or beneficiaries - including ex-wives, and daughter Lara and Patty Fornicola.


It is possible to have a forgotten life insurance policy with the beneficiary being the ex-wife. I know of someone who had been divorced for many years and remarried with a new family. When he passed away in his 40's the ex wife was the one who collected on the insurance, not kids from first or second marriage or second wife.

[Politigal]

It is possible to have a forgotten life insurance policy with the beneficiary being the ex-wife. I know of someone who had been divorced for many years and remarried with a new family. When he passed away in his 40's the ex wife was the one who collected on the insurance, not kids from first or second marriage or second wife.

yep, it's a possibility

If RG met with foul play, I'm still trying to look at any possible motives, and money seems to play a big role in a lot of homicides.

[J. J. in Phila]

On insurance:

1. Policies could have been forgotten.

2. A beneficiary could have been assigned in either divorce settlement.

There is one major problem, however, no one can collect it so long as RFG is alive legally. RFG is alive legally; no one has made an effort to declare him dead.

[Politigal]

An interesting document about “missing” insured and life insurance benefit claims:

http://fdcc.digitalbay.net/documents/Sentell-W04.htm

And:
Pennsylvania law says a missing person can be presumed dead after seven years.

Read more: "Missing woman declared dead after 7 years" - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08040/856148-85.stm#ixzz0GiEWsDwD&A

[nittany90]

yep, it's a possibility

If RG met with foul play, I'm still trying to look at any possible motives, and money seems to play a big role in a lot of homicides.

You're right, P'gal. Money is often a motive for murder. But, my guess is, if someone wanted life insurance money, they would have taken steps to ensure that Gricar's body would be found. No body, no declaration of death, no payout. Wasted effort.

I doubt that the perp, with murder motivation spurned on by money, would be patient enough to wait 7 years for a legal declaration to be made.

I'm still leaning toward foul play, but don't think life insurance was the motive. JMO.

[Politigal]

You're right, P'gal. Money is often a motive for murder. But, my guess is, if someone wanted life insurance money, they would have taken steps to ensure that Gricar's body would be found. No body, no declaration of death, no payout. Wasted effort.

I doubt that the perp, with murder motivation spurned on by money, would be patient enough to wait 7 years for a legal declaration to be made.

I'm still leaning toward foul play, but don't think life insurance was the motive. JMO.

I still think it's a possibility...especially for a patient person or someone who no longer gained financially from a live RG.

[sherrijean981]

I still think it's a possibility...especially for a patient person or someone who no longer gained financially from a live RG.


Ah, pgal........

[Politigal]

Ah, pgal........

Personally, I don't really think collecting on life insurance was a motive. (but it's a possibility)

I still believe it was just a spur of the moment crime committed Thurs night.

[J. J. in Phila]

Realistically, there are two people who, right now, could benefit financially from RFG's disappearance. RFG or LG. I don't think she could kill him from 2,500 miles away, and I don't thing he killed himself for the money.

[2-B]

I'm not sure I understand how RG benefits financially from his own disappearance. Seems to me he's out his retirement monies, which would be a pretty significant sum.

And realistically, without knowing what life insurance policies exist and who his beneficiaries are on those and on his retirement account, we can't really say who stands to benefit should he be declared legally dead.

That said, I'd probably put finances down the list on motives for foul play in this case. Just my opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure I understand how RG benefits financially from his own disappearance. Seems to me he's out his retirement monies, which would be a pretty significant sum.

And realistically, without knowing what life insurance policies exist and who his beneficiaries are on those and on his retirement account, we can't really say who stands to benefit should he be declared legally dead.

That said, I'd probably put finances down the list on motives for foul play in this case. Just my opinion.

I was being sarcastic when I suggested a dead man would benefit from his own life insurance. :) I'll use tags in the future.

[2-B]

I was being sarcastic when I suggested a dead man would benefit from his own life insurance. :) I'll use tags in the future.

Actually, you said Gricar would benefit financially from his disappearance. That's what confused me.

I do recall one case where a husband and wife conspired to collect on the husband's life insurance after his hoaxed death, however, so I guess it is technically possible for a "dead" man to benefit from his life insurance. Well, until the authorities catch on, that is.

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, you said Gricar would benefit financially from his disappearance. That's what confused me.

I do recall one case where a husband and wife conspired to collect on the husband's life insurance after his hoaxed death, however, so I guess it is technically possible for a "dead" man to benefit from his life insurance. Well, until the authorities catch on, that is.

Actually, I said that I don't RFG killed himself to get his life insurance.

In theory, it would be possible to be "in cahoots" with a beneficiary and then collect after being declared dead, and technically, the family might not have to wait seven years either. It looks like RFG's family is in no great hurry to have him declared dead.

The question, for which I do not have an answer, is:

Is there enough money to inherit to offset the loss of pension?

The way it looks is, no, unless there are unknown assets to inherit.

I'm not yet ready to call for the family to spread out the financial data over the Internet.

[nittany90]

Actually, I said that I don't RFG killed himself to get his life insurance.

In theory, it would be possible to be "in cahoots" with a beneficiary and then collect after being declared dead, and technically, the family might not have to wait seven years either. It looks like RFG's family is in no great hurry to have him declared dead.

The question, for which I do not have an answer, is:

Is there enough money to inherit to offset the loss of pension?

The way it looks is, no, unless there are unknown assets to inherit.

I'm not yet ready to call for the family to spread out the financial data over the Internet.


If there is, indeed, a loss of pension. Assuming he's never found alive, and is declared dead at the end of 7 years, won't his pension still be inherited? Even if he didn't list a beneficiary designation on his pension, his estate would be entitled to his pension. We don't know if RG had a Will, but if he didn't, his estate would fall under the intestacy laws of Pennsylvania -- In a nutshell, RG was unmarried, so his sole living heir, LG, would inherit everything....his pension would be payable to his estate, and LG is the sole beneficiary of his estate (if there was no Will).

Unless, of course, his pension benefits ended with his death.

Had he not "disappeared" in April, 2005, would he have started receiving his pension after retirement (in January 2006)? That's one of the biggest things that doesn't sit right with me about "walkaway". Why wouldn't he just wait a mere 9 months, AFTER he started drawing benefits, to leave?

[J. J. in Phila]

The pension is the best argument I've heard against walkaway.

It was reported that the amount deposited, that he could get if dead, was $300 K. That sounds like a lot, but, but I have a source that indicated he'd be getting close to last salary in pension benefits. That would be in excess of $120 K per year. He should be getting around that, gross. Even after taxes, he could be earning, minimum, $75 K per year. As of right now, after figuring state inheritance tax, he'd have a net loss, without looking at any living expenses he'd have now in theory. In seven years, RFG would net $575 from the pension.

Unless there were a lot of unknown assets, I don't see an advantage financially.

Remember as well, if RFG walked away, there would be expenses associated with that act, along with standard living expenses. The real question is, where there enough unknown assets to balance that?

[nittany90]

The pension is the best argument I've heard against walkaway.

It was reported that the amount deposited, that he could get if dead, was $300 K. That sounds like a lot, but, but I have a source that indicated he'd be getting close to last salary in pension benefits. That would be in excess of $120 K per year. He should be getting around that, gross. Even after taxes, he could be earning, minimum, $75 K per year. As of right now, after figuring state inheritance tax, he'd have a net loss, without looking at any living expenses he'd have now in theory. In seven years, RFG would net $575 from the pension.

Unless there were a lot of unknown assets, I don't see an advantage financially.

Remember as well, if RFG walked away, there would be expenses associated with that act, along with standard living expenses. The real question is, where there enough unknown assets to balance that?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded sentence above. Gricar's executrix would pay 4 1/2 % PA Inheritance tax on the date of death value of the asset (after applicable expenses are applied). How is that a "net loss"?

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded sentence above. Gricar's executrix would pay 4 1/2 % PA Inheritance tax on the date of death value of the asset (after applicable expenses are applied). How is that a "net loss"?

The hypothetical net loss would be the difference between what RFG would get from his pension (net) over seven years versus that money from his pension fund (net) inherited through the estate. In other words:

RFG retires and stays for seven years, he gets, $575,000 net (roughly), over that time.

RFG walks away. In seven years, his estate gets $286,500 net (roughly).

The difference between potential income that RFG could have, if he stayed for seven years, and what his estate would get, if he goes, is about $190,000.

Now, his pension might be a bit smaller, but even at 70% of base, he'd still end up with more money if he stayed.

There are other factors, i.e. if part of that pension was given to an ex-wife in a settlement, his pension was much smaller than what I've been led to believe, or if there are unknown assets that he could have clearer access to if he walked away.

I am saying, that, from what is public at this point in time, RFG would not be making any money by walking away.

[2-B]

My opinion: I think the bottom line on the money angle has always been pretty clear.

Most of us have always seen that RG stood to lose a bundle by a planned walkaway that occurred eight months prior to his retirement. So finances are one item in a list of arguments against a planned walkaway.

OTOH, if foul play is involved, RG's finances could potentially play a role depending on RG's will, any insurance policies, and how his retirement plan is structured, especially with respect to beneficiaries. But there's not a very strong argument for foul play with money as a motive. No body means whoever wants to collect would also have to have a great deal of patience and hope the family has RG declared legally dead sooner rather than later.

If money plays a role in RG's disappearance, I tend to think it entered the picture through some other avenue.

[J. J. in Phila]

The question, however, is assets. We are referring to the difference between what RFG would get if he stayed and what his estate would get if he'd be declared dead. That is roughly $190,000.

Could there be assets worth well more than $190,000 out there some place, unknown to any one? Maybe.

[Cloudbuster]

I agree LW with your comment on someone feared a action RG was going to take. It would be something they feared that RG knew about and started looking into it. My own opinion is a few like someones payroll ect. Also the PBM holds a key component also. IMO RG was watching someone who later ran for something promenient but didn't get it.