If you’re a Frenchman with a life insurance policy, and you die as a result of the vax, the insurance company does not have to pay the contractual amount to your beneficiaries, because your death is considered a suicide. This is official, mind you, as confirmed by a court ruling.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for translating this post from the French blog NS2017:
In France, a life insurance company will not make a payout of several million euros following the vaccination death of a wealthy grandfather and former businessman from Versailles. The policy worth several million euros, which was meant to benefit his children and grandchildren, will not be reimbursed.
The court accepted the insurer’s qualification considering, in legal terms, the decedent’s participation in the Phase 3 experimentation of a vaccine whose proven harmlessness is non-existent, and in light of the listed side effects, including death, was a voluntary fatal risk not covered by the contract and is legally entered as a suicide.
The family appealed, but the insurer’s legal defence submitted that it is well-founded and contractually fair. They argued that it is known publicly, and that this sort of lethal risk-taking is legally a suicide because the client was notified and agreed to voluntarily take the risk of death without being forced or obliged to do so. Therefore death after vaccination is considered a suicide by the courts!
The insurers will not reimburse the loans either, because taking the fatal risk of receiving the vaccine excludes you from the contract, which becomes null and void. Of course, this information has been reported several times on all national media, right? [Translator’s note: I think the last sentence is sarcasm.]
“Therefore death after vaccination is considered a suicide by the courts!”, wow, carrying out your civic duty and dying from it is considered suicide by the courts, I wonder if the suicider had waited till the jab was mandatory, would it then be considered murder by the courts?
Hello Baron. It’s been a few years since I posted here. I visited the linked site for this story and there is no further link to to any real information.
No place names, no personal names, no references to actual courts.
The writer has been asked for links and provides two in the comments section, both of which are circular references back to her own site. Another possible link refers to Forbes magazine but this also speaks in generalities.
I am not saying the story is incorrect, but I am saying I can’t find corroborating evidence.
The insurance company is on the net, look at their policies.
The text suggests that the person in question was participating in a Phase 3 trial. Was the person actually enrolled in a clinical trial? Or is that just a euphemism being used to label every shot recipient, on the basis that anyone taking a non-approved vaccine is in essence part of an “unofficial” Phase 3 trial (the biggest one in human history, no less)?