A Policy for the Judge

Peter Fuld was a German refugee who had become a Canadian citizen and created a thriving telephone-equipment business in London and Frankfurt. Three years ago, at 41, Fuld died of a brain tumor, leaving an estate estimated at $28 million, plus an exwife, an ex-fiancee, his mother, other relatives and numerous friends--all with assorted claims to his money.

In the longest hearing of its kind in British history, 19 barristers representing 14 parties recently spent 91 days battling over Fuld's will before Justice Sir Leslie George Scarman of the British High Court of Justice. The hearing wound up in July after running up costs of around $1,500,000. At that point, Mr. Justice Scarman reserved his decision and packed up for a two-month fishing holiday in the Outer Hebrides.

Then the barristers really began worrying. Suppose Justice Scarman never got back--reserving his decision forever? Under British practice, the huge court costs could well come out of the estate, and with the demise of Justice Scarman, the added bite of a lengthy second trial might well leave the claimants with little or nothing with which to pay their legal fees.

Last week the barristers revealed their simple and highly unusual solution. With Scarman's approval, they took out $840,000 worth of short-term life and disability insurance on the judge (premium: about $7,500), with a guaranteed payoff if for any conceivable reason he is unable to render a judgment. Happily, this week, Justice Scarman, still in good health, is scheduled to return and issue his decision.

British lawyers can recall only one previous case of an anxious litigant's insuring a pondering judge (in 1959, for $14,000); the idea is apparently unknown in the U.S., where from time to time judges have died in mid-trial and left cases in shambles. In a famous 1944 sedition trial of pro-Nazi sympathizers, for example, the chief judge died after six months' testimony, a mistrial was declared, and the 30-odd defendants were never retried.

One hitch to insuring a judge is that big money probably has to ride on his staying alive. A would-be beneficiary can insure another person's life only if he holds an "insurable interest" or a substantial financial stake in that person's survival. A creditor can thus insure a debtor, an employer a key employee. So why not insure the litigant's "amen" when the bailiff cries, "God save this honorable court"?

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.