Four days before her death, a fax signed by Teena Kamal was sent to Virginia-based life insurance company Genworth requesting a change to her $1.25 million life insurance policy. The amended policy listed her husband and daughter as primary beneficiaries and added her husband’s brother, Manoj Kamal, as the contingent or backup beneficiary.
Rakesh Kamal had amassed massive debt from the $3.8 million mortgage on a $4 million property taken out in 2019 and a series of poor business deals. In September 2022, a bankruptcy petition was filed for amount of between $1 million and $10 million, which was later dismissed for lack of documentation.
After the death, Rakesh's brother, Manoj Kamal, who found the bodies, filed a claim with the life insurance company to collect the payout from the policy. However, Teena's brother, Sandeep Bedi, being her property manager, expressed reservations about the policy changes and the death clause.
Genworth insurance company went to Bostonian federal court with the petition to decide who should receive the policy benefit.
If the case comes to trial, Manoj will insist that the money should go to him as a backup beneficiary, while Bedi will challenge the validity of the policy changes and verify the authenticity of the signature. If the court finds the changes invalid, the policy will remain in effect as originally written and the money will go to Teena's property, which will be distributed among creditors and next of kin.
This case highlights the complexity and potential legal and financial implications of changes to life insurance policies in the context of serious financial problems and tragedies.
Photo is from open sources.
