if someone is turned in for insurance fraud are they the only ones held responsible?
New York, NY
Viewed 26 times.
Posted 18 days ago in Insurance
Flag as objectionable
in the middle of a divorce, just found out that my soon-to-be ex-husband has illegally been covered by his father's insurance. i was never covered by this insurance, but i want to know that if someone turns them in, that i won't be held responsible since i was married to him during the time of the fraudulent claims, even though i was ignorant of the fact that it was going on.
Answers (3)Alan Joseph Depeters
This attorney is licensed in New York.
Posted 18 days ago.
Flag as objectionable
Questioner:
This is really a question of criminal law. In order to be found criminally responsible for insurance fraud, you have to have, with intent, engaged in behavior designed to defraud the insurance company, such as filing a false claim or lying about eligibility. According to your question, you had no knowledge as to the apparant wrong doing by your husband or father-in-law. Provided that this is in fact true, you cannot be held criminally responsible for alleged fraud that you did not know existed. In short a spouse cannot be vicarioulsy criminally liable for the unkown crimes of the other spouse. Further, in New York a spousal privilege exists. This means that any confidential communication between spouses during the marriage is privilegd to the outside world. Further, no one spouse may waive the privilege unilaterally. Only upon consent of both spouses can the privilege be wiaved. This means that if you learned of the alleged fraud through a confidentail spousal communication, your husband would have to agree to any disclosure of it by you. On the other hand, if you learned of the alleged fraud through an observation or non-confidential dislcosure (such as a statement to you when others were present) then you can decide whether to disclose the statement and further be compelled to tetsify to the non-confidential statement. The foregoing was for general informational purposes only. No attorney client relationship was formed nor implied by the answeirng of this general question.
Carlos Gonzalez
|