Supreme Court: "Even if Cause of Death is Disputed in Court... Statute of Limitations for Insurance Claim Rights Starts from Date of Death"

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul / Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Even if it is being disputed in court whether a civil servant who committed suicide can be considered a death due to a ‘work-related accident,’ the Supreme Court has ruled that the statute of limitations for the bereaved family’s claim for death insurance benefits against the insurer begins from the time the insured person died.

On the 7th, the Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) announced that it overturned the lower court’s ruling, which had ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of a civil servant who died from work-related stress, claiming 150 million won in insurance benefits against the insurer, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

Civil servant Kim, in November 29, 2009, died by jumping from an apartment after experiencing extreme work-related stress. Following this, Kim’s wife, Ms. A, filed a claim for survivor’s compensation against the Government Employees Pension Service, but the pension service rejected it on the grounds that “Kim took his own life.”

Ms. A won the case at the Supreme Court in 2015 after administrative litigation and received survivor’s compensation from the pension service. At that time, the court ruled that “Kim was in a state of severely diminished mental restraint due to depressive disorder caused by extreme work-related stress,” and judged it as a “death due to a work-related illness.”

In the same year, Ms. A demanded the insurance company, with which Kim had an insurance contract during his lifetime, to pay 150 million won in accidental death insurance benefits, but the insurer refused.

The insurer argued that Kim’s death was due to “the insured intentionally harming himself” under the insurance policy terms, so it did not qualify as accidental death, and that the claim for insurance benefits had expired because more than two years had passed since the date of death.

The first and second trials ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Just as the Supreme Court recognized ‘accidental death’ in the previous administrative litigation, the insurer must also pay the related insurance benefits.

Furthermore, it was judged that the statute of limitations for the insurance claim had not expired. Ms. A could only have known about the occurrence of the insurance accident on July 9, 2015, when the administrative litigation ruling was finalized, and the statute of limitations for the claim should be considered to have started from that time.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for the claim began on November 29, 2009, the date of Kim’s death. Since Ms. A had recognized the case as a work-related accident and proceeded with administrative litigation based on her husband’s suicide note and other evidence, it should be considered that she was aware of the occurrence of the insurance accident as well.

The court stated, “There is no special circumstance that prevented Ms. A from exercising her claim against the insurer after Kim’s death,” and “the lower court erred in its legal interpretation regarding the starting point of the statute of limitations for the insurance claim,” thus overturned and remanded the case.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.