The PennZone

LOS ANGELES - PennZone -- The importance of retaining a specialist when you have a life insurance claim investigation.

A California man died in a car crash when his Tesla slammed into a parked fire truck. An investigation showed the Tesla was operating under the full Self-Driving mode when the crash happened. Blood testing results showed the driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.09 (just over the legal limit in California).

The man had life insurance and the family filed a claim for the benefits. To their surprise the life insurance claim was denied because of an exclusion in the policy. The exclusion stated that if the insured dies of injuries that happen while drunk driving the policy will not payout.

More on The PennZone

• Igbozue Connecticut USA Celebrates 2026 Summer Family Picnic
• KT Medical Staffing Addresses the Questions Families Forget to Ask Before Bringing Private Nursing Care Home
• Private Autopsies Give Arizona Families Answers After Nursing Home and Care Facility Deaths
• Chuckie F. Mahoney Memorial Foundation Awards Nearly $40,000 in School Grants
• OPUS Global Data Solutions Launches Food Trader Plus, Bringing Operational Control and Deal-Level Profit Visibility to Food Brokers

The family hired the Center for Life Insurance Disputes to fight the denied life insurance claim.

The Center discovered that Tesla's full Self-Driving function had a significant history of malfunctioning leading to numerous auto accidents – some deadly. The Center also uncovered that two blood test were done post-mortem but because of traffic fatality laws in California only one test result was used by the authorities. However, state regulations for traffic accidents only apply to authorities and don't allow an insurer to obfuscate their fair handling obligations.

The Center took their fight directly to the life insurer and won the appeal.

First, they showed that based on promises by Tesla about the full Self-Driving mode and the large number of accidents that happen while the Self-Driving mode is engaged the insured's alcohol level was immaterial.

More on The PennZone

• Phinge CEO DeMaio Unveils Speech to Congress: User Data Sovereignty vs Tech Surveillance Capitalism, Asserting Foundational 2021 App-Less Patents & IP
• Michael Maertens Hired as Century Fasteners Corp. – Chief Financial Officer
• LATO AI Software Innovations Expedite Inspections & Repair of Parking Lots for The Pavement Group
• Built to Last: Why BSI Is Among the Nation's Fastest-Growing Companies, and One of Its Best Places to Work
• Bent Danholm's The Architecture of Demand Reaches No. 2 in Amazon Real Estate Sales

Next, with the assistance of a seasoned toxicologist, they argued that the blood alcohol testing used for the Cause of Death did not sufficiently prove the man was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Rather, the second blood test result showed a blood alcohol level of only 0.07 (below the legal limit) and the insurer was obligated to weigh both results equally.

Without any refusal from the insurer to accept the findings and that the insured was not drunk driving at the time of the accident. The claim was quickly paid and interest was piled on.

Another win by The Center for Life Insurance Disputes.