Should there not be law where it is illegal to do life insurance policy on a victim without the her permission

SOMETIME BEHIND HONOUR KILLINGS THERE IS THE MOTIVE OF CLAIMING MONEYS FROM INSURANCE POLOCIES DONE ON VICTIMS , WITHOUT THE VICTIM KNOWING IT. SHOULD THIS NOT BE CHECKED OUT AND STOPPED . AND SHOULD THERE NOT BE A LAW THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR ANY POLOCIES OR IN PARTICULAR LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES TO BE DONE WITHOUTH THE VICTIMS AGREEMENT AND PLUS TWO MORE SIGNATURES ? WHY IS THAT LAW NOT AVAILABLE. ENJOY THE LOVELY SUMMAR AND LOOK FORWARD TO AUTUMN. BEST. TIPPI

Yes, I do. They won't let you insure someone else's car without good reason.

The only safeguard is that the policy won't pay out to the murderer.

There are already laws in place. You can't insure someone else's life unless you have an "insurable interest". That basically means that you would lose money if they died and the policy is only enough to stop you being out of pocket. When you arrange a policy, the person whose life it's on has to sign a declaration - so you can't do it without them knowing.

If someone has insured their own life, made no will and you are their next of kin, you will receive the proceeds. However, there's also a law that says a murderer can't inherit from his victim.

Technically, it is an offence if you take out insurance on somebody unknown to you. However, the Law does allow for a husband to insure his wife and vice versa. This is because a third party has to have the policy for it to be paid out on a death. Otherwise, you would have to insure yourself against death and try to make a claim from beyond the grave. Insuring spouses and close family members is fine, in Law. However, it does not mean that you can go out and insure Queen Elizabeth. You could try insuring George Bush but the premium would be more than the payout LOL If you could just insure anybody, as you are suggesting, I would be a multi-billionnaire by now. I would have had a whopping big claim for the Queen Mother, would have made millions from Princess Dianna and as for celebrities, Spike Milligan, Harry Seacombe and Peter Sellers would have got me a few quid. There's your answer, you can not just go out and insure anybody and in the case of suspicious deaths, insurance records are always checked and sometimes are discovered as a motive. Without the insurance policies, many murders would have gone unsolved, the policy is normally the most crucial piece of evidence and is the one thing that gets a conviction.

English law recognises "insurable interest". Insurable interest can be described thus:

Insurance requires for its validity that the insured shall be so related to the subject-matter of the insurance that he will benefit from its survival or will suffer from loss or damage to it or may incur liability in respect of it. In the absence of such an interest, known as an insurable interest, the insurance will be invalid. Everyone has an insurable interest in his own life and spouses are deemed to have such an interest in the lives of each other.

In order for a risk to be insurable the proposer must have an insurable interest in the risk.

An example of insurable interest would be in order to insure a car it would need to be yours or a member of your families. So you couldn't insure your neighbours car, as if it is lost then you suffer no financial loss.

I'd agree, though, that now, for life cover, it might be sensible to have a requirement that the insured acknowledges the arrangement. Time to lobby your MP?

No, but in view of what you've said, maybe it would be a good idea to limit the underwriting to a certain amount. Four- to low-five figures perhaps.

IT IS ILLEGAL. No contract is valid if it does not have the consent of all parties or is made under duress.