Widower's fury after insurance company refused to pay out for wife who died in car crash... because she was a smoker

The grieving electrician knew he could never replace 29-year-old Sarah, but he hoped that claiming on their dual life insurance policy would help meet the costs of suddenly becoming a lone parent.

Scroll down for more...

But he was devastated when Legal & General refused to pay out - because of a dispute over whether or not charity worker Mrs Webb had been a smoker.

The firm said that when she filled out the insurance form she had indicated she was not a smoker, but it then found a contradictory entry on her medical records.

Mr Webb insisted that at the time they took out the policy in 2001 his wife had given up smoking because they were planning to start a family.

But even though whether or not she was a smoker had no bearing on the cause of her death, Legal & General said it was entitled not to pay out, claiming important information had been withheld.

Mr Webb was pitched into a legal battle which has only now, two and a half years after the car crash, been resolved with him receiving £100,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

He said: "I was distraught when my wife was killed, especially given the sudden and horrific circumstances. The last thing I needed was to have to fight my insurance company. They should be ashamed."

Scroll down for more...

Mr and Mrs Webb, from Letchworth, Hertfordshire, and their daughter Samantha had been driving on the A1 in December 2004 when their car was rammed by 19-year-old Charles Brown.

He was trying to kill himself after being dumped by his girlfriend and was driving the wrong way at 90mph.

Brown, of Langford, Bedfordshire, was only injured in the crash and was later given a ten-year jail sentence after admitting manslaughter.

Mrs Webb died at the scene and her husband broke his arm, but Samantha, now five, escaped unscathed.

It was soon afterwards that Mr Webb phoned his insurer about the life insurance policy, which would pay out £200,000 for each partner.

A clause had asked: "Have you used any tobacco products in the last 12 months?"

Filling out the form in 2001, a pregnant Mrs Webb, who had given up smoking, said no. Her husband, who is a smoker, said yes.

But when insurers looked at her medical records they found a form from her maternity papers that had the "smoker" box ticked.

They took this to mean she had withheld information, even though her family said she gave up smoking when she started to try for a family.

Mr Webb said: "I never dreamed that Legal & General would search through Sarah's medical records and seek to avoid payment in this way. It's totally unbelievable."

Legal & General said: "After careful consideration we took the commercial decision, on a non-liability basis, to accept the offer of settlement from the solicitors acting on behalf of Mrs Webb's estate."