Father of Jihadi fighter wants her life insurance

by |
By Paul Lucas

An Islamic extremist and a life insurance claim – this is a tragic story that you just couldn’t make up.

The case in question surrounds Mohamed Karroum, 72, the father of a Gold Coast jihadist – who has now launched a legal battle in an effort to secure a pay-out from her life insurance policy.

According to a report by The Courier Mail in Australia, his daughter Amira was said to be a “beautiful and loving” girl who enjoyed spending time at the beach before she transformed into an armed soldier. She was killed while fighting for Islamic extremists back in 2014.

Her father now believes that he should receive a pay-out on the policy because the daughter was said to be “tricked” into entering Syria at a time when it was not illegal to do so.

Thus far, IntrustSuper has refused a life insurance payment due to her links to the terrorist group Al-Qaida. The decision has received backing from the Australian Government which had labelled her a terrorist.

However, Karroum disagrees with the decision. He told the publication that the law about travelling to Syria was only introduced after she was killed. He is also defiant that his daughter was tricked by the extremists.

Amira Karroum was married to Yusuf Ali, an American-Australian who had trained with Al-Qaida while overseas. According to her father it was Ali who persuaded her to leave Australia and it was there that they met up with the group Jabhat Al Nusra, which has links to Al-Qaida. She was later shot by ISIS militants and had her arms dismembered.

Do you believe that her father has a right to a life insurance claim? Leave a comment below with your thoughts.
  • Matthew LeCouteur on 28/04/2016 2:57:45 PM

    (You're asking for opinions on a very thin story. But, with that disclaimer in mind...)

    Does the policy exclude death in "military action" where the participant is a combatant, but not necessarily a member of recognised/National armed forces?

    Does the proscription list from the Government really matter, if the contract is worded clearly enough that it's not payable in these circumstances? Or is this the basis of the denial from the insurer?

    Could a Court seriously consider the "I/she was tricked" argument?
    That would be a very problematic precedent to set, especially if it was upheld in a higher court.

    Morally, I don't think it should be paid; contractually, if there's no legitimate exclusion, it should be paid.

Corporate Risk & Insurance forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions