The final injustice to strike Seth Snyder would not be the sudden and devastating loss of his wife, but the realization that the steps the couple took to ensure financial security in the case of such a tragedy would be all for naught.
In late 2021, I shared with you the Snyders' heartbreaking story: Radhika, a 39-year-old family physician, died by suicide after apparently suffering a postpartum psychosis following the birth of her second child. Snyder was left to manage raising a newborn and an 8-year-old daughter on his own. The Snyders' village of loved ones rallied to keep them going, raising money for the family through GoFundMe and even coordinating a "milk train" from various pumping moms.
But one thing that did not come through is Radhika's life insurance policy.
Many policies have an exclusion period that exempts insurance companies from paying death benefits to survivors if the policyholder takes their own life within the first two years of coverage. The so-called "suicide clause" is meant to protect firms from fraud and financial risk, but it is a cruel blow to already traumatized families and subscribes to outdated notions of mental illness.
"The way it's framed is as if it's a moral failure," Snyder said. "That's how they investigate them: They look for what they view as proof that a person was plotting their own eventual death and would use life insurance as a vehicle to fraudulently make money for their family."
Problem is, that's not usually how suicide works. Research shows that many people who attempted suicide decided upon it hastily, rather than methodically planning it. In one study, survivors of near-lethal suicides were asked how much time passed between when they decided on suicide and when they actually attempted it. About one in four said it was less than five minutes. Only 13% said they deliberated for a day or more.
"It's beyond me to think someone is going to decide they're going to kill themselves, take out a life insurance policy, and wait two years to take their own life," said Sue Abderholden, executive director of NAMI-MN. "It just doesn't make any sense."
Abderholden's group is pushing for a change in state law that would reduce the exclusion period from two years to one, in line with how it works in in North Dakota, Colorado and Missouri. The bill is a compromise — Abderholden initially wanted the exclusion period reduced to three months. But as it now stands, the bill has the support of Minnesota's insurance lobby. A unanimous and bipartisan vote in a House committee last week bodes well for the bill's chances of being passed this session.