Re: Cryonics Presents Chilling Question for Life Insurers

Randall Clague (
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:22:36 GMT

On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:06:47 -0400, wrote:

>"Is the guy
>dead?" I asked, "Then pay the claim."
>But a real question is presented to cryonicists by this rhetorical question.
> If cryonicists are right and "reanimation" lies in their future, then life
>insurance proceeds paid upon their "deanimation" might be at risk. Will the
>Acme Life Insurance Company be entitled to recover policy death benefits upon
>reanimation, with interest? Perhaps more chilling, might a life insurance
>adjuster be entitled to question the fact of death at the time the claim is

Non-problem. Generally a de-animated person is considered dead, so
pay the claim. In fact, I think some insurance companies cooperate
with the cryonics agencies, and allow the suspendee to pay for the
suspension with his insurance benefit. Not too different from using
life insurance death benefits to pay for hospice care, or drug
treatment for AIDS patients.

>Maybe there's a silver lining to the cloud imposed by this question: Perhaps
>life insurers could someday provide a source of funding for cryonics research
>if a _partial_ recovery of death benefits were agreed as part of the
>insurance contract for policyholders committed to suspension?

You want someone to pay you after he's been re-animated?
"Welcome back to the land of the living, Mr. Burch. I'm Herb, your
guide; I'll be working with you to get you used to the changes since
your de-animation. First, there's some paperwork: you owe your
insurance company $13,000,000..."

No thanks.

I'd take the opposite tack. Sell a re-animation policy. Like an
annuity. If the guy re-animates, you're out a lot of money, but what
the hey, you've been earning interest on it for decades...that's what
insurance is about.


Randall Clague | All about me lay those who had not the strength | to go on. A normal man would have given up, or
| died. ...I am not a normal man.