The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is investigating new information that could disprove the original finding
of accidental death in the drowning of local businessman Stephen Hilbert’s mother-in-law.
Germaine “Suzy” Tomlinson, mother of Hilbert’s wife, Tomisue Hilbert, died on Sept. 28, 2008, at the age
of 74. Stephen Hilbert initially feared foul play, but IMPD ruled the death an accidental bathtub drowning.
An IMPD detective, however, now is reviewing potential evidence that has come to light in a civil lawsuit filed after Tomlinson’s
death, IMPD spokesman Paul Thompson said.
The legal dispute arose over who can claim a $15 million life insurance policy issued on behalf of Tomlinson by Houston-based
American General Life Insurance Co.
Tomisue Hilbert is working with a team of attorneys to determine whether her deceased mother’s estate can claim the
benefit. The civil lawsuit is set for a jury trial in October.
Tomisue Hilbert said in an e-mail to IBJ that her family is cooperating with police in its renewed investigation.
“I am speaking for my entire family when I state we are very pleased that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
has reopened its investigation into the circumstances of our mother’s tragic and sudden death,” she said.
Thompson at IMPD said the case technically hasn’t been reopened because detectives never closed it.
“We hate to classify a case as closed,” he said. “They’re always happy to review any new information.”
In the legal quarrel, American General is attempting to invalidate the policy it issued in January 2006 insuring the life
of Tomlinson. The insurance company argues the policy was part of a stranger-originated life insurance, or STOLI, scheme.
A STOLI scheme involves outside investors who effectively wager on when an insured person will die. In a typical transaction,
an investor entices someone, usually a senior citizen, to take out a multimillion-dollar life insurance policy. Investors
purchase the policy and pay the premiums, making themselves the beneficiaries. In return, the insured person receives an upfront
cut of the eventual death payout.
Under the arrangement, the sooner the insured person dies, the better the return for investors.
The initial defendants in the Tomlinson case were J.B. Carlson, owner of the locally based Carlson Media Group; Nevada insurance
broker Geoffrey A. Vanderpal; and Delaware-based Wilmington Trust Co.
Carlson said Tomlinson served as vice chairwoman and a director of his company, which paid annual premiums of $387,274.85
on the policy. As trustee, Carlson said he’s entitled to the $15 million.
In court documents, Carlson has alleged Tomlinson began attending Carlson Media Group board meetings in November 2002, making
the $15 million policy “Key Man” insurance.
The Wall Street Journal on April 12 published a story in its front page about the legal dispute and reported that
Carlson was the last person to see Tomlinson alive.
An IBJ reporter working on a story originally alerted Hilbert and the Indiana Department of Insurance about American General’s
lawsuit in January 2009. Hilbert wasn’t previously aware of the suit.
“When we learned there was a $15 million insurance policy, we had even greater concerns about the unusual circumstances
surrounding our mother’s death,” Tomisue Hilbert said in her e-mail. “The information we have learned in
the last few months shows there were strong financial incentives for those involved.”
Tomisue Hilbert previously has described Tomlinson as a healthy, active and vibrant woman with a busy and fulfilling life.
Hilbert said she and her husband found her mother fully clothed, face down in a bathtub, with broken glass nearby, making
the circumstances of her “sudden” death even more unusual.
The Marion County Coroner’s Office listed Tomlinson’s cause of death as asphyxia by drowning with acute ethanol
intoxication as a contributing cause.
Tomisue Hilbert last summer became an intervenor defendant in the insurance tussle, arguing that American General should
not invalidate the $15 million policy. Instead, Tomisue Hilbert argues its proceeds should go to Tomlinson’s five adult
children.

















IBJ Conversations
15 Comments
Add Comment
It's just mycase.in.gov
Help?
Thereâ??s a story Jim Buck likes to tell about a former client, an Indianapolis businessman named Harold Tomlinson. By the early 1970s, Tomlinson had amassed a small fortune as the proprietor of several local concerns, including an airport, a mobile-home park, a carpet-and-linoleum shop, and a used-furniture store called Mama Richeyâ??s Wore House. A widower, Tomlinson had fallen in love with a young French-Algerian named Germaine, whose friends called her Suzy but whom Tomlinson, in his conversations with Buck, always referred to as a â??French whore.â?? Before long, Suzy was pregnant with their child and eventually gave birth to a baby girl.
Wanting to provide a stable home life for his beloved, daughter, Tomlinson decided to marry Suzy. Also wanting to protect his own assets, and anticipating an eventual divorce, he asked Buck to draw up a prenuptial agreement. Buck argued against a prenup; in those days, Indiana courts disregarded the contracts in divorce cases because, essentially, lawmakers saw them as detrimental to marriage. But Tomlinson insisted on Buckâ??s drafting an agreement and on having his bride-to-be sign it.
One night not long into the marriage, Tomlinson, who owned a saloon on the Westside, came home late. Drunk, he lay down on the couch so as not to disturb his sleeping wife. HE AWOKE WHEN SUZY BROKE A WOOD-COVERED BIBLE OVER HIS HEAD, THEN TOOK THE â??family .38â?? OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND EMPTIED IT'S CONTENTS INTO THE TIRES OF TOMLINSON'S CAR. STILL IN HER NIGHTGOWN, SHE GRABBED THE BABY AND LEFT, PUSHING THE STROLLER, GUN IN HAND, up Kessler Boulevard.
Suffice it to say, the marriage was over. Buck, sure the prenum heâ??d drafted for Tomlinson would never hold up in court, set out to convince the presiding judge that it was valid. And in a stunning decision, the judge agreed. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson became a landmark case in Indiana matrimonial law-the first time ever that a judge recognized a premarital agreement in a divorce case. Though it would take the General Assembly 20 years to write prenumps into law, the Tomlinson decision effectively legitimized them thereafter. And Buck, who sometimes calls himself â??the father of the prenup,â?? estimates that he has tried more than 300 of them since. (Side note: The Tomlinson daughter, Tomisue, would later marry Conseco founder Stephen Hilbert, whose first wife Buck also represented. More on that later). Among other lawyers and potential clients, Tomlinson helped establish Buck as a daring and highly skilled advocate, placing him squarely on the A-list of Indianapolis divorce attorneys. He has since climbed to the top of that list, earning a reputation that has put him at the center of the highest-profile, highest-stakes Indianapolis divorces of the past 30 years.
See for yourself:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0QsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA135&dq=germaine+tomlinson&hl=en&ei=Ihz8S83PKoG78garstzPBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=germaine%20tomlinson&f=false
Tomisue also forgot to mention that her mother was seeing a doctor for alcoholism and prescription drug abuse.
But wait, is it possible there is EVEN MORE? Read through the last case and you'll see that the judge ordered her to sell her car: "5)deft must sell or other wise transfer ownership and title of all motor vehicles in her possession and provide proof of change of title to probation within 60 days;"
Germaine Tomlinson's driving record is even worse than what's reported on this site... I simply can't provide a link to in in this forum.
Click on Criminal, Search by "defendant." Enter the last name of "Ball" first name of "Randy." You'll see he was convicted of BATTERY RESULTING IN BODILY INJURY after his mother died. He was also filing personal bankruptcy then,was deperate for cash, knew about the policy and has a hugh portion of the death benefit coming his way. But wait!! There is more!! Also search again at mycase.in.gov under "Dominique Ball" (Suzy's grandson that she was close to) and you'll discover that he has a case pending: 35-42-2-1.3(a)/MA: Domestic Battery..... Suzy's friends know that she got violent with Randy when she was drunk.
I think that someone that has been convicted of BATTERY RESULTING IN BODILY INJURY and currently serving a sentence for it is capable of killing his mother...