Gary Giordano Sued By Amex Assurance Company

[bbeba103]

Gary Giordano Sued By Amex Assurance Company, Claims Roybn Gardner Insurance Policy Not Valid


WASHINGTON —An American Express subsidiary is suing a Maryland man who was jailed for months in Aruba in the suspected death of his traveling companion.

The subsidiary, AMEX Assurance Company, seeks to void a travel insurance policy that Gary Giordano, of Gaithersburg, took out in Robyn Gardner's name before their Caribbean vacation last year. The lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in Maryland, says the policy isn't legally enforceable because Giordano and Gardner aren't married or otherwise related, weren't business partners and didn't own property together.

It also accuses him of lying on insurance forms by identifying Gardner as his "partner" when the two actually had what the company calls a "casual and non-exclusive" relationship.

"You have to have an economic interest in the person" when taking out a policy, American Express spokeswoman Gail Wasserman said Monday.

The suit also says that Gardner remains a missing person, and that aside from Giordano's public statements suggesting she is dead, "there is no other direct evidence that she is no longer alive."

Giordano, 51, was arrested at the Aruba airport in August 2011, several days after reporting her missing. He has said Gardner, a Frederick woman he met on an adult social networking site, was swept out to sea as the two were snorkeling off the southern tip of Aruba –a claim contested by her family. Giordano was jailed until late November, when a judge said prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to continue holding him. He has since returned home to Gaithersburg, in suburban Washington.

The travel insurance policy, which covered both Giordano and Gardner, caught the attention of Aruban investigators trying to build a criminal case. Gardner's policy listed Giordano as her sole beneficiary; Giordano designated his mother as his sole beneficiary. Two days after reporting her missing, Giordano began "to make inquiries about the accidental death and dismemberment portion of the policy on the life of Ms. Gardner," according to the lawsuit. He asked a representative whether the company had received forms that he had earlier mailed and faxed in, and asked whether the original copies he had would also be acceptable, the lawsuit says.

Giordano has said he routinely takes out insurance when he travels and that he inquired about the insurance on the advice of his former lawyer.

His lawyer, Scott Blumenshine, said Monday that Giordano remains entitled to collect the insurance sum. In June, Giordano sued AMEX Assurance Company in Illinois, where the company is incorporated, seeking to collect $3.5 million under the terms of the policy. Blumenshine said travelers are entitled to file claims on insurance policies they take out, and added that the claims in Giordano's lawsuit that would allow him to collect on the policy remain true.

The company says in its lawsuit that Gardner "had no role in the decision to purchase insurance." Giordano took out the policy, made himself the beneficiary and sent in the forms, said Wasserman, the American Express spokeswoman. However, Blumenshine said Gardner herself signed the form.

Wasserman said policyholders generally can't make a claim until one year after an insured person has disappeared. The company decided to sue now that the "waiting time period has expired."

"It was kind of the appropriate time for us to move so that we could evaluate the facts of the case and come to our conclusions," Wasserman said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... fTab=Today

[bbeba103]

Former Robyn Gardner Aruba Murder Suspect Sued By Insurance Company

September 10, 2012

The former prime suspect in the disappearance of missing Maryland woman Robyn Gardner is being sued by the insurance company that he took a policy out on her life with.

An American Express subsidiary has taken out a lawsuit against Gary Giordano, of Gaithersburg, to void the claim that he made in her name before the couple went on an ill-fated trip to Aruba in August 2011.

The suit was filed by the AMEX Assurance Company in federal court last week, claiming that the policy isn't legally enforceable because Giordano and Gardner aren't married or otherwise related, weren't business partners and didn't own property together, reported the Huffington Post.

It also accuses him of lying on insurance forms by identifying Gardner as his "partner" when the two actually had what the company calls a "casual and non-exclusive" relationship.

"You have to have an economic interest in the person" when taking out a policy, American Express spokeswoman Gail Wasserman said Monday.

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, authorities arrested Gardner's traveling companion, 51-year-old Giordano as he tried to leave Aruba last summer, after he reported Gardner had disappeared while snorkeling August 2. After a series of searches, neither Gardner's body nor any related physical evidence was recovered, spurring a judge last December to order Giordano freed.

The travel insurance policy on Gardner's life was one of the first red flags for the Aruban authorities while investigating her mysterious disappearance.

Just two days after he claimed she had been swept away snorkeling, Giordano began "to make inquiries about the accidental death and dismemberment portion of the policy on the life of Ms. Gardner," according to the legal papers.

The company also states that Gardner "had no role in the decision to purchase insurance." Giordano took out the policy, made himself the beneficiary and sent in the forms, said Wasserman, the American Express spokeswoman.

Earlier this year, Giordano was arrested and charged with indecent exposure after allegedly engaging in "sexual activity" with a woman in his Cadillac Escalade SUV in a public parking lot. The charges have since been dropped.

http://m.radaronline.com/exclusives/201 ... y-giordano

[dugo]

"You have to have an economic interest in the person" when taking out a policy, American Express spokeswoman Gail Wasserman said Monday.
If you take an American blonde to the beach in Aruba you have a very big economic interest in the person. If something happens to her you're ruined.

[RatPatrol]

"You have to have an economic interest in the person" when taking out a policy, American Express spokeswoman Gail Wasserman said Monday.
If you take an American blonde to the beach in Aruba you have a very big economic interest in the person. If something happens to her you're ruined.

Well said, sir! Unfortunately very true though.

[resigned]

AMEX is just trying to weasel out of payment.

The policy was a standard travel insurance policy with accidental death/dismemberment clause

A similiar policy had been sold to Gary Giordano before.

They may allow him to wait until a presumption of death has been declared, but the rest is bullshit.

He has not been charged with any crime in Robyn's disappearance and should be treated accordingly.

One Big Agency helping another Big Agency.

[dugo]

AMEX is just trying to weasel out of payment.

The policy was a standard travel insurance policy with accidental death/dismemberment clause

A similiar policy had been sold to Gary Giordano before.

Standard operating procedure for an insurance co. Of course they are looking for technicalities in the beneficiary designation only after you file a claim.

[resigned]

I don't agree that it is SOP for insurance companies to sue their clients. I agree they investigate claims but since Robyn isn't even declared dead - they have plenty of time to do that before any payment of a life benefit would be due.

[Flippy]

But is is also standard that you can't take out a life insurance policy on someone that you have no economic interest in, and even if you do then you need consent.

This is what stops someone from taking out life insurance on random people, or celebrities, or that friend of yours that you know is on the highway to an early grave.

Here is a case that was pretty famous in it's time; this is actually quite close to what Gary is being accused of (in the court of public opinion).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... anger.html

Question then is should the insurer verify the legal relationship before taking out the policy, or wait until a claim to evaluate it?

[resigned]

That article is based on 1945 CA law. The times have changed a bit since then. I do think that the person paying for the trip does have an economic interest in the other person whether they are casual-sex partners, business partners or domestic partners. Has anyone seen the actual policy? I recall ABC was showing policy GG took out on Robyn (apparently in her hand) from the canceled cruise, iirc, from June of the year but supposedly it was claimed she only initialed the latter policy since it was more of a last minute "affair" Unless he forged the documents and AMEX can prove it - he should be entitled to collect for his monetary losses now and the accidental death benefit on Robyn(when she is declared dead). JMO If he had no insurable interest in his travel companion then he should not have been sold the policy. What about group insurance for travel groups whether it be an organization or a school. Does everyone have to have an interest in each other in the group - even if the policy is just for travel expense re-imbursement? I doubt it - but what's the difference, really. There are some companies that take out life insurance while you work for them and maintain your policy long after you've been laid off or retire and collect on them when you kick the bucket ( dead peasants policies) ......Nice huh ? But a man traveling with a woman who has the unfortunate luck of drowning has to jump through hoops even when 2 countries can't find that any crime occurred.

[Flippy]

That article is based on 1945 CA law. The times have changed a bit since then.

If you Google "insurable interest" you will see that it still applies today. State laws may vary, but the concept is not a novel one and dates back to the 1700's.

I do think that the person paying for the trip does have an economic interest in the other person whether they are casual-sex partners, business partners or domestic partners.

That would be million dollar question; quite literally in this case.

JMO If he had no insurable interest in his travel companion then he should not have been sold the policy.

Should be pretty easy to get the standard policy they sell and see if there is a checkbox or something where he claims an economic interest.
I agree that they should not sell a policy to someone who does not claim an insurable interest...that would be class action lawsuit material far more expensive than just paying off Gary.

What about group insurance for travel groups whether it be an organization or a school. Does everyone have to have an interest in each other in the group - even if the policy is just for travel expense re-imbursement?

That is not LIFE insurance. Other insurance would have different rules; but to take out life insurance....that gets tricky.

There are some companies that take out life insurance while you work for them and maintain your policy long after you've been laid off or retire and collect on them when you kick the bucket ( dead peasants policies) ......Nice huh ?

My company has this kind of policy on me. Its for "key employees" where the company would suffer from the loss of the employee. There is an economic interest by company in my life; if I leave the company it is my option to "take the policy with me" and name a different beneficiary. But even then, they could only take out a policy that the underwriter's felt was a reasonable valuation of my life's value to the company. They could not insure me for a billion dollars or something like that.

But a man traveling with a woman who has the unfortunate luck of drowning has to jump through hoops even when 2 countries can't find that any crime occurred.

It comes down to whether or not Gary claimed an insurable interest that didn't exist.

[resigned]

Flippy, I agree with most of the points you made. The dead peasants policies are subject to abuse - maybe not as much now as 10 or 15 years ago but anyway regarding the case................The life insurance money appears to be just a rider/option attached to the travel insurance. AMEX is seeking to void the whole insurance policy which in turn would eliminate the life insurance benefit on Robyn.( in the announcement that AMEX were suing, I don't really see where they mention it specifically or exclusively as a life insurance policy taken out on Robyn, which sounds like double speak, but there is probably a reason for it, IMO) It just seems smarmy to me. Granted - I think Robyn drowned plain and simple so the insurance company looking for an out rubs me the wrong way to begin with. It's not as if I feel that GG "deserves" $1.5 million on Robyn's life but he does deserve to be paid whatever he is eligible through the benefits he purchased ~ if that includes the death benefit - so be it.

[Flippy]

Code: Select all

It's not as if I feel that GG "deserves" $1.5 million on Robyn's life but he does deserve to be paid whatever he is eligible through the benefits he purchased ~ if that includes the death benefit - so be it.


If he took it out honestly, then sure, I agree.

[dugo]

Should be pretty easy to get the standard policy they sell and see if there is a checkbox or something where he claims an economic interest.
I agree that they should not sell a policy to someone who does not claim an insurable interest...that would be class action lawsuit material far more expensive than just paying off Gary.

IIRC back then the MD policy beneficiary defaulted to dependents. I could not find the forms to be used to change the beneficiary online. I assumed being travel partners would satisfy any insurable interest doctrine and didn't bother to dig further.

[dugo]

But is is also standard that you can't take out a life insurance policy on someone that you have no economic interest in, and even if you do then you need consent.

What states requires consent? You should be able to underwrite a large event insurance portfolio (substantial interest ) by taking out life insurance on the president without his consent.

[Flippy]

But is is also standard that you can't take out a life insurance policy on someone that you have no economic interest in, and even if you do then you need consent.

What states requires consent? You should be able to underwrite a large event insurance portfolio (substantial interest ) by taking out life insurance on the president without his consent.

I don't think so. I am not an insurance agent, but google tells me it is pretty universal (in the US) that you must have a financial interest in a person to take out a life insurance policy. There is a concept where I could take out a policy on my own life, and then "sell" that policy as an investment for a 3rd party. This is apparently called "stranger-owned-life-insurance" but such a policy is taken out with my consent.

The Importance of Insurable Interest
Life insurance laws vary between states, but one thing that is universal is that there must be an insurable interest in the individual being insured. Put simply, the person’s death must result in a financial loss to you if you are going to insure against it. Put another way, you must gain a financial benefit from the insured person continuing to live. These two conditions sound the same, but they can be read and used in very different ways.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf ... z27XWjeau0

[resigned]

Report: Giordano Loses In Fight To Claim Insurance Money

Friday, March 01, 2013
Steve Fermier and WJLA TV


The Maryland man whose travel companion disappeared mysteriously in Aruba 2 years ago has lost a round in federal court.

It means a lawsuit against his claim on an insurance policy for a Robyn Gardner can go forward, WJLA TV reported.

A judge dismissed Gary Giordano's attempt to fight the insurance carrier that is refusing to pay the $1.5 million dollar policy he took out on Gardner before the trip to the island.

Amex Assurance Company, a subsidiary of American Express, sued Giordano in an attempt to void the policy and potential payout.

Giordano was held by authorities for weeks after he claimed that Gardner disappeared while the two were snorkeling in the ocean.

Giordano had gone to court to have the lawsuit against him dismissed.

http://www.wbal.com/article/97966/2/tem ... o5x58.dpuf

[bbeba103]

Judge Allows Travel Insurance Lawsuit to Proceed in Aruba Missing Tourist Case

March 3, 2013

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a suit filed by an insurer against a Maryland man jailed over the suspected death of his traveling companion in Aruba.

An American Express subsidiary is suing Gary Giordano of Gaithersburg, Md., over a travel insurance policy he took out in Robyn Gardner’s name before their Caribbean vacation.

The suit says the policy isn’t enforceable because the two aren’t married, business partners or related otherwise. Giordano sought dismissal on multiple grounds, including whether the challenge should be filed in federal court.

The 51-year-old Giordano was arrested at the Aruba airport in August 2011 after reporting her missing. He has said the Frederick woman was swept out to sea while they were snorkeling. A judge later ruled prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to hold him.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/ea ... 283381.htm

[bbeba103]

Insurance lawsuit in Aruba disappearance can move forward

Posted by Aruba Daily on March 1st, 2013

ARUBA - A lawsuit filed against a Gaithersburg man suspected in his vacation partner’s disappearance in Aruba can move forward, a federal judge has ruled.

Gary Giordano, 51, is suspected in the disappearance of Robyn Gardner, a Frederick woman who vanished in August 2011. He is being sued by the company that issued him an insurance policy covering Gardner’s life.

http://aruba-daily.com/

So Gary is getting sued...