Battle being fought over Andy Maul life insurance policy

By Gary Scott on June 27, 2016 at 1:49pm

A disagreement over the proceeds of the life insurance policy for a murdered Jacksonville man is being taken to the federal court system.

Andrew Maul was shot to death in the parking lot of the Jacksonville Police Department in September of last year. His ex-father-in-law, Robert Gill, is charged with murder, as well as arson for allegedly attempting to burn Maul’s mother’s house down.

A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in January by Cincinnati Life Insurance Company against Andrew Maul’s ex-wife, Jewell Maul, Russell Maul, his father, and Betsy Hutchison, the executor of Andrew Maul’s estate.

Following Andrew and Jewell Maul’s divorce, they agreed that he would maintain a 250-thousand-dollar policy designating her as a beneficiary as custodian of their two children, according to the complaint.

A second policy was taken out for just under $70,000 naming Russell Maul as the contingent beneficiary.

Shortly after Andrew Maul’s death, Jewell Maul submitted a claim for the policies and has demanded payment, according to court records. But the policy payouts may instead go to Russell Maul or the two Maul children.

The document says “on information and belief”, Jewell Maul is being investigated for complicity in Andrew Maul’s death, and that if she is found to have “caused the death” of Andrew Maul, she’ll be prohibited from benefitting from the life insurance proceeds.

The Jacksonville Police Department has never said Jewell Maul is under investigation, and she has not faced any charges other than violating an order of protection.

If she is found to have not caused Andrew Maul’s death and her interest was not waived in the six-figure policy from the divorce settlement, the complaint says Jewell Maul may be entitled to the policy’s proceeds.

A factor in the decision is whether or not the two Maul children are beneficiaries from the divorce agreement.

Attorneys for Cincinnati Life Insurance asked in January for the court to order the parties to work out a settlement. This past week, the insurance company asked the court in Springfield to allow it to deposit the policy with the court, and allow the court to award the money.

A status conference was held last Friday; the case has been continued.