Pilot Life Insurance Company V Dedeaux

As the world moves towards an era of technological advancement, it is inevitable that AI will displace some humans in various jobs. While this seems like a dystopian future to many, feel free to find out how these changes could help businesses in their day-to-day operations!


Bankruptcy is a legal process in the United States during which an individual or business insolvent determines that they cannot repay all of their debts. This can include loans, credit card debts, and other significant expenses. Bankruptcy may be a solution to solve financial difficulties while allowing the debtor time to reorganize and restore their finances. Bankruptcy law provides a number of protections for creditors, as well as the debtor. Bankruptcy can be filed by an individual, business, or government entity. Keep in mind that bankruptcy is not a panacea for all debt problems; it is typically only used as a last resort when other alternatives, such as traditional loans, are not available or successful. Some key points to consider before filing for bankruptcy include understanding your financial situation, understanding your rights as a creditor, and making a plan to pay off your debt. If you are considering bankruptcy, consult with an attorney to discuss your specific case and possible options.


If you have flown with a certain airline and been in an accident, chances are you will be covered by the airline’s pilot life insurance policy. When filing a claim, it is important to know how to go about it. This section will outline the different steps involved in filing a claims against an airline for pilot life insurance, as well as provide some helpful tips.


Pilot life insurance company v dedeaux The pilot life insurance company successfully defended its action in Dedeuvs v. Pilot Life Insurance Company, 2014 WL 5192206 (Del. Ch.). A group of pilots sued the pilot life insurance company after their individual policy lapsed and they were without coverage. The plaintiffs alleged that the company knew their policies had lapsed but continued to collect premiums on those policies. The company argued that it was not aware of the lapse and continued to make premium payments based on the information it had at the time. In court, the company argued that because the policy holders were not physically present in Delaware to contest the lapse, they were not subject to jurisdiction in Delaware courts. The court disagreed, finding that because the policy holders could have contested their lapse by sending notice to the insurance company, they were subject to jurisdiction in Delaware courts. This case sheds light on issues surrounding policyholder consent to waive a policy’s jurisdictional threshold.