home

Vaccine Death Insurance Case

Vaccine Death Insurance Case

Vaccine Death Insurance Case

Re: the Legality of Life Insurance claims due to Death from the Covid Vaccine

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan ?, 2022
  • Location: France
  • Court:
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Family of Deceased
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Carlo Alberto Brusa
  • Defendant: Life Insurance Company
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Defendant

*updated Feb 6, 2022

Background

A wealthy elderly man with a high value Life Insurance policy to the amount of millions of euros… dies from the covid jab. [1]

His death as a consequence of being jabbed is not disputed by the doctors, nor his life insurers. [1]

The Insurance company refused to pay the policy, citing that the taking of experimental drugs, treatments, etc., is excluded from the policy. [1]

The family takes the insurance company to court. [1]

France last year (2021) put in place a health pass that prevents people without a PCR test or proof of vaccination to enter restaurants, cafes and other venues. The government wants to turn it into a vaccine passport that means only the vaccinated can have a health pass. [2]

note: The case was published by the family’s lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on social media. Unfortunately, no sources or court records are given. [4]

 

Significance

This case legally confirms that death from the vaccine is possible, despite many claims by politicians tot he contrary. It therefore puts into question the logic and reasonableness of mandating such an inoculation to the entire population.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

The insurance company stated the policy clearly states that deaths from experimental medicine are the same as suicide, and it doesn’t need to pay out. [3]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

The judge stated, “the experimental vaccine side effects are publicized and the deceased could not claim not to have known about them when he voluntarily took the jab. [1]

There is no law or mandate in France which forced him to be jabbed. Therefore, his death is essentially suicide”. [1]

(Suicide is explicitly excluded from this particular policy and in fact from all life insurance policies in general.) [1]

“The court recognizes the classification of the insurer who, in view of the announced side effects, including death, legally regards participation in the phase three experiment, whose proven harmlessness is not given, as voluntarily taking a fatal risk that is not covered by the contract and legally recognized as suicide.” [3]

 

Aftermath

  • Canadian former premier of Newfoundland Peckford and co-author of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights on his blog wrote: [1]

This has been the finding of a major western world court system and there is zero doubt that insurance companies world wide will cite this case as legal fact. [1]

Therefore, if anyone ever challenges you on whether these jabs are experimental or not, and that neither the pharma companies, nor govts, nor anyone else but YOU are responsible for accepting them and if you die, legally you have committed suicide. No insurance, no payouts, no refunds. You are on your own! [1]

  • In Austria as of Feb 1, 2022, it’s mandatory for all citizens to take the Jab. [1]
  • The French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday , Jan 4 2022, he wanted to “piss off” the non-vaccinated. [2]

“I won’t send (the unvaccinated) to prison, I won’t vaccinate by force. So we need to tell them, from Jan. 15, you won’t be able to go to the restaurant anymore, you won’t be able to down one, won’t be able to have a coffee, go to the theatre, the cinema…”

The expression “emmerder”, from “merde” (shit), that can also be translated as “to get on their nerves”, is considered “very informal” by French dictionary Larousse and prompted immediate criticism by rivals on social media.

  • Actuaries have been warning that rising claims will be eroding the capital which insurers set aside to avoid insolvency. Notably, older people do not take out life insurance, which means that the claims have been from younger clients. Insurers say that they expect a rise in excess deaths. [4]
  • According to Alex Berenson, the risk of injury or death from the jab is exceptionally high judging from Canadian data. [4]
  • The refusal to pay for a vaccine-related death may not be surprising since globally the life insurance industry has been hit with reported claims of $5,5 billion in the first nine months of 2021 versus $3,5 billion for the whole of 2020, according to insurance broker Howden. [4]
  • Dutch insurer Aegon, with two-thirds of its business in the US, said its American claims in the third quarter were $111 million, up from $31 million a year earlier. [4]
  • Vaccine deaths may force insurers to raise premiums and some have indicated that they intend to punish the unvaccinated for their financial woes. [4]

Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

….

source: ….

 

References

  1. DEATH FROM VACCINE RULED SUICIDE
  2. Macron says he wants to ‘piss off’ the non-vaccinated
  3. Life Insurance Company Denies Claim of Vax Victim Since Jab is Experimental
  4. Life insurer refuses to cover vaccine death
  5.  

 

Keyword

Brusa, Carlo Alberto Brusa, France, Insurance, Life Insurance, Macron, suicide, Vaccine Death, Versailles

Back to All Cases

 

Lockdown Insurance Case

Lockdown Insurance Case

Lockdown Insurance Case

Re: the Legality of Insurers not to compensate Businesses for Losses due to the Lockdown Measures

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: May 22, 2020
  • Location: Paris, France
  • Court:
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Stéphane Manigold
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: AXA insurance
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Feb 6, 2022

Background

Stéphane Manigold, owner of four restaurants (and president of restaurants consortium Eclore) in Paris brought a case against French insurer AXA, France’s biggest insurance group.He filed a lawsuit demanding that AXA cover his operating losses after a government order in mid-March to close bars and restaurants to try to slow the spread of the virus. [1]

AXA has a 13% market share among French craftsmen and merchants. AXA said it only had 200 contracts in its portfolio with French businesses in various sectors that provide business interruption guarantees when there is no physical damage involved. [2]

 

Significance

This case potentially puts the burden of financial loss/ compensation due to the corona measures onto the insurance companies.

It has global significance.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

AXA had argued its policy did not cover business disruption caused by the health crisis. [1]

“The vast majority of AXA France contracts for catering professionals provide that a generalized event like the one we are experiencing today cannot bring into play the contractual guarantees,” AXA said in an emailed statement. [1]

Insurers argue that pandemic risk is excluded from operating loss insurance guarantees because it is not insurable. French insurers would otherwise have to compensate 20 billion euros per month for operating losses due to the lockdown, industry estimates show. [2]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

a Paris court ruled that the firm should pay Manigold two months’ worth of revenue losses caused by the virus pandemic. [1]

The court said that the administrative decision to close the restaurant qualified for insurance cover as a business interruption loss. [2]

 

Aftermath

Defendant’s Response:

AXA said on Tuesday May 22, 2020, it would meet the bulk of business interruption claims from some restaurant owners in France after it lost a court case that was seen as a potential precedent for coronavirus-related disputes across the world. [1]

AXA has said it will appeal the Paris ruling, but Chief Executive Thomas Buberl said on Tuesday the company was seeking an amicable solution and planned to meet the bulk of claims from restaurant owners whose contracts had some ambiguity in them. [1]

“These contracts represent less than 10 per cent out of total contracts with restaurant owners and I am confident that we will find a solution,” Buberl said. [1]

“We want to compensate a substantial part of these contracts, we want to do it quickly.” [1]

AXA also said it would provide a further 500 million euros ($546 million) in aid for small companies, on top the plans already announced by French insurers to invest 1.7 billion euros in domestic companies. [1]

Plaintiff’s Response:

Stephane Manigold, the owner of four Paris restaurants who brought the case against the French insurer, told Reuters that since the court decision his team had received calls from Britain, South Africa, Spain and the United States asking for details of his contract and the court’s ruling. [1]

“This decision in Paris has a global resonance,” he said. [1]

“This is a collective victory,” he told Reuters after the ruling. [2]

“This means that all companies with the same clause can appeal to their insurers,” Manigold’s lawyer, Anais Sauvagnac, said. [2]

Additional:
  • In Britain, the financial regulator has also turned to the courts to try to get clarity on whether insurers should pay out coronavirus-related claims to small businesses. [1]
  • Some other French insurers have said they will pay out business interruption losses to some customers, depending on specific contracts. Generali France, for example, has said it will make payments to 600 hospitality businesses. [1]

“This decision … revives questions among many insured,” said a French lawyer, who advises insurers and brokers over contracts, of the Paris court decision. [1]

Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

  • …More information is needed…

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

….

source: ….

 

References

  1. French restaurant’s big win over insurance giant AXA could set precedent
  2. French court orders insurer AXA to pay restaurant’s COVID-19 losses

 

Keyword

AXA, Buberl, France, Insurance, Lockdown, Manigold, Paris, Restaurant, revenue losses

Back to All Cases

 

Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion: Right to Resist

Re: the Right of Resistance to government rules when those rules are a danger to the people

 

Back to All Cases

The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

INTRODUCTION by Virginie de Araujo Recchia, Attorney at the Paris Bar

When the institutions of a State, whose primary purpose is to ensure the protection of public order, the safeguarding of fundamental principles, freedom and rights of the people, no longer stand in the way of the drift of totalitarian regimes, as it is the case today with some States around the world, it is the duty of every individual to resist oppression.

It is a sacred right, a right of democratic vigilance, the ultimate remedy against tyranny.

Here are some important observations concerning the right to resist oppression extracted and translated into English from the original French language article by Fragkou Roxani.

International Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. No. 654,2013.pp. 831-857;

http://www.persee.fr/doc/ridc_0035-3337_2013_num_65_4_20282


At the outset, this was research to better understand article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, which says (in a very discreet way) that the people have a right to resist oppression (the Declaration of Human Rights of 1793 is often cited but it’s not part of the French Constitutional corpus).


This article also mentions the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 and also the Hellenic Constitutional system.

Selected extracts from: The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

  • The German Basic Law, the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Hellenic Constitutional corpus and precisely the article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 for example, clearly state that the people have a right to resist oppression.

It is however a principle of natural law proper to human nature that can be applied anywhere in the world.

The right to resist oppression was theorized for the first time by Ciceron (and Antigon myth p.835).

John Locke referred more than three centuries ago: “in the face of oppressive power, resistance is legitimate. Injustice of the sovereign releases the subject from the obedience that he normally owes him” (p.832).

  • The article 34 of the French Declaration of 1793 (even it’s not part of the Constitutional corpus, explains):

“There is oppression against the social body when only one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed”. Oppression exists, moreover, even when only one individual is a victim, because the whole social body is united by an “intimate and close solidarity” which creates in them the feeling of being all targeted, even when only one of them is in reality” (p.838).

“For proponents of the natural law thesis, resistance to oppression is a sacred right, emanating from man’s nature and existing beyond and independently of his “positivization”. As a natural right, the safeguarding of the Constitution is similar to the right of every individual to resist an oppressive and authoritarian regime. It is based on natural law, from which it derives its legitimacy. It belongs to the unwritten laws of human nature and logically pre-exists the state and its fundamental and supreme norm.” (p.841)

Indeed,” the right of resistance is a right whose holders are exclusively the citizens. For the constituents, the mission of vigilance towards the maintenance of the established order and the constitutional safeguard exceeds the narrow framework of the control carried out by the state bodies. It is thus attributed to all the citizens of the country, governors or governed, in their capacity as members of the community, of citizens”. (p.851)

According to the author of “Traité de Science Politique”, George Burdeau, “the engine of the resistance it is neither the crowd, nor the tribune, it is the individual who has the political taste and who judges; it is the citizen that does not fascinate “the hypnosis exerted by the Power”; the one that refuses to be dupe”. Because it is necessary that there is “at the beginning of the popular movement, a reaction of individual consciences”, otherwise “it will be a riot or a revolt, it will not be, in the full sense of the word, this refusal to accept any longer the arbitrariness of the rulers which characterizes the resistance to oppression“

“Resistance to oppression is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it is conservative in nature, its mission being to defend the established constitutional order and to contribute to the return of the to the status quo ante” (p.855).

 

Keywords

resistance to oppression, 1776, Antigon, article 34, Ciceron, constitution, de Araujo Recchia, Declaration of Independence, France, French Declaration of Human Rights 1793, German Basic Law, Grundgesetz, Hellenic Constitutional system, Legal Opinion, natural law, Right to Resist, sacred right, Virginie

Back to All Cases