Death without a named beneficiary

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:48 am   Post subject:   

Registered representatives, I.E. (stock brokers) ARE useful idiots.



These are the people who had to get an insurance license to be able to sell the infamous bloated pig with lip stick known as a Variable Annuity. They are controlled by their Bernard Madoff type broker dealers and they deal what their broker dealers push.



THEY ARE NOT INSURANCE AGENTS.



And they wouldn't know risk management if they had a mouth full of it.



This thread is an example of head up their assterisk thought process.



The most important information on a life insurance policy or an annuity contract is the BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS.



Lori…. I've been banned before and it's always because some moderator and or administrator doesn't know what they're talking about such as yourself on this thread.



You should be ashamed of yourself.



Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.



And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.



Now tell me something Missy…..how does that square with your so-called “preference clause” you seem to think controls?



See THIS LINKY.

732.102 Spouse's share of intestate estate.--The intestate share of the surviving spouse is:



(1) If there is no surviving descendant of the decedent, the entire intestate estate.



(2) If there are surviving descendants of the decedent, all of whom are also lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, the first $60,000 of the intestate estate, plus one-half of the balance of the intestate estate. Property allocated to the surviving spouse to satisfy the $60,000 shall be valued at the fair market value on the date of distribution.



(3) If there are surviving descendants, one or more of whom are not lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, one-half of the intestate estate.



Now Missy and I.E. (stock broker) just EXACTLY what do you think will prevail in Court? The Florida Law that governs this situation or a contract provision that is contrary to state law?



I can hardly wait to read your non-answer answers.



_________________

Gary Spicuzza, *SAFE

Copyright 1956.

No Rights Reserved.

*Self Appointed Financial Expert
GarySpicuzza
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message


Forum Expert

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 965

Location: West Pasco County, FL
243.98 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:42 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Registered representatives, I.E. (stock brokers) ARE useful idiots.


That's your opinion..but that is NOT what you said...what you said was,
Quote:
Keep posting I.E. you're a useful idiot.
and that will NOT be tolerated...alright?

Quote:
Lori…. I've been banned before and it's always because some moderator and or administrator doesn't know what they're talking about such as yourself on this thread.
How does that have to do with this? I've warned you about your 5th grade name calling...NOT about your (albeit warped) opinion...it has zero to do with opinion, or knowledge and everything to do with (your) character or lack there of..period..



Quote:
You should be ashamed of yourself
For what? trying to maintain a clean site? Free of childish brat fits?
Quote:
Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.
I asked for ''your'' definition of life insurance Gary, since you seem to believe that ANY and ALL group policys are not life insurance. You further continue to disregard any and all proof that is contrary to your point of view...Since you are (apparently and clearly) incapable of admiting any type of error..

Quote:
And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.
What does that have to do with what we are discussing? oh, nothing...more smoke and mirrors.. Rolling Eyes You're clearly a lost cost Gary.


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:42 pm   Post subject:   

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit



February 2, 2006



436 F.3d 1109





24

When a plan participant fails to identify a beneficiary, we must turn to the governing plan documents to ascertain the default beneficiary. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(Cool ("`[B]eneficiary' means a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan."). Here, however, the parties dispute which of two plans found in the record was in effect at the time of Parker's death. Pietrofitta argues that a Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc. policy was in effect at the time of Parker's death, and that it makes the decedent's spouse the default beneficiary.[3] In contrast, the Estate argues that a Bank of America plan was in effect at the time of Parker's death, and that it establishes the decedent's estate as the default beneficiary.[4] Although the parties advanced these arguments in their opening summary judgment pleadings and at the motions hearing before the district court, the district court did not make a finding of fact as to which plan was in effect at the time of Parker's death.[5] The court referred to the Bank of America plan in its general order, but because of its disposition, never reached the question of which plan governed for purposes of determining a default beneficiary. We cannot tell from the two plan documents in the record their effective dates or how, if at all, they govern Parker's designation. We therefore remand to the district court to make a factual finding as to which plan governed at the time of Parker's death and to determine the default beneficiary.



IV. CONCLUSION



25

The judgment is reversed, and we remand for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. Each party to this appeal shall bear its own costs.



26

REVERSED and REMANDED.



Notes:



[1]

The relationship codes may be very useful. If, for example, a plan participant named "Mary Smith" as his beneficiary, the code might clarify whether Mary Smith was the participant's wife ("SP" for spouse) or his mother ("PA" for parent)



[2]

Here, however, is one lesson of our cautionary tale: plan administrators disserve both plan participants and beneficiaries when they accept a beneficiary designation that does not unambiguously identify the beneficiaries. If plan administrators will accept a designation by reference, they would be well advised to require that plan participants either attach the documents referred to or otherwise clearly identify where they may be found



[3]

That policy reads: "If no beneficiary is named or no beneficiary survives the insured individual, proceeds shall be payable in the following order to: 1) the spouse, if living. . . ."



[4]

The Bank of America employee handbook provides: "If you die and no beneficiary designation is in effect as to any part of the insurance, or if there is no designated beneficiary then living with respect to any part of the insurance, the insurance company may, at its option, pay such part to your estate."



[5]

At oral argument, counsel for Pietrofitta argued, and counsel for the Estate seemed to concede, that the Estate did not argue below that the Bank of America plan governed and that the argument has been waived. The Estate plainly attached a copy of the Bank of America handbook to its first summary judgment pleading. Documents from both the Boatmen's plan and the Bank of America plan are in the record before us. Moreover, counsel for the Estate at the district court's motions hearing argued that the Bank of America plan governed. The argument has not been waived


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Guest







PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 am   Post subject:   

hmm wonder who the guest is?

fireyone
Senior member
Leave a quick message

fireyone

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1986


2.38 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:44 am   Post subject:   

Gary, If nothing else, your failure when it comes to logical thought is quite amusing. I could pick apart your full post, but it's obvious that you simply can't comprehend anything that doesn't go along with your incorrect preconceptions.



It is quite interesting how you keep getting kicked off of boards and it's always the moderators fault for not understanding something. Gary, you get kicked off for your combination of lack of knowledge, beligerence, and inability to admit when you are wrong.



Quote:
Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.




I'm writing this for the benefit of every body except Gary since he simply won't understand. It is the sole property of the owner. The insured is not relevant. We have to recognize that the insured and the owner are often not the same person. The only time that it can ever be a probated asset is if the owner of the policy dies. If the owner of the policy dies and he is not the insured, it will be probated unless there is a successor owner. There usually isn’t one.



If the owner and the insured are the same person, it will only probated if the beneficiary is the insured or the insured’s estate. Otherwise, it won’t be a probated asset. It does not matter if the beneficiary is specifically named or is a preference beneficiary.

_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Guest







PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:55 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.



Now tell me something Missy…..how does that square with your so-called “preference clause” you seem to think controls?




Gary, please don't tell me that you are serious with this stuff?

What does it meant to die intestate? It means to die without a will.



Florida, like all states, has their intestate laws. How does this have anything to do with life insurance? It doesn't except when insurance gets paid to the estate and the person has no will. What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing! There is nothing here that says anything making it illegal to have preference beneficiaries.
InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:59 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
Now Missy and I.E. (stock broker) just EXACTLY what do you think will prevail in Court? The Florida Law that governs this situation or a contract provision that is contrary to state law?



I can hardly wait to read your non-answer answers.




There isn't a Florida Law that stops preference beneficiaries. There aren't life insurance policies that are contrary to Florida state law. If the contract was contrary to state law, the state wouldn't approve it.



I assume that the definition of a "non-answer answer" is all answers that show Gary to be wrong.
InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:04 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing!
My point exactly..once again, smoke and mirrors...stick to the subject at hand Gary...IF a life insurance policy has a preference or default beneficary claus, the policy is paid to those default beneficarys IN ORDER, if no beneficiary is named...and in all I've seen the estate is the last or number four on that list...


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:51 am   Post subject:   

Lori, smoke and mirrors is usually used to describe someone doing something to intentionally hide the truth. With Gary, I truly think that is mind is wired in such a way that actually prevents him from seeing the truth when it doesn't jive with his opinions. In other words, no matter how wrong he is, he can't admit that he's wrong simply because he can't comprehend being wrong.



I just sold a Florida policy today. The preference beneficiary was the owner of the policy if living and if the owner is not living, it is the estate of the owner.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:25 am   Post subject:   

Best thread EVER!



Thank you guest for that "Federal Court" case on GROUP LIFE INSURANCE no doubt governed under ERISA. Bad things happen without proper beneficiary designations and especially when Federal Law clashes with State Law.



Now what should be abundantly clear to anyone who may read this thread is the importance of proper beneficiary designations.



ONLY registered representatives controlled by their Bernard Madoff type broker dealers with little to no insurance experience would think everything's going to be "OKAY" without proper beneficiary designations.



Hmmmmmmmm, seems to me that court case DEMOSTRATES the legal mess that is created when beneficiary designations are left blank or are improper.



There's nothing quite like litigation over life insurance proceeds, the lawyers love it because they know they are going to get paid.



So tell me something so called Insurance Expert; and Lori; and Guest…..just exactly what point do you think you’ve made on this thread?



Has this thread validated so called Insurance Expert’s premise that a preference clause makes everything “okay?”



Hardly.



And I hope I.E. was the “guest” who found that court case. It pretty much sums up what I’ve been saying all along…..BLANK BENEFICAIRY DESIGNATIONS will go through the Probate Court System.



And now for some Gary Spicuzza fun.



Anonymouse so-called Insurance Expert who started this thread wrote in his very first post:

Quote:
There have been quite a few posts with this subject.



Many people have been saying that if there is not a named beneficiary, the proceeds get paid to the estate.



I chimed in and said that a policy could have a default beneficiary. I also said that I thought that most policies don't have a default beneficiary.



Anyway, I sold two policies today from two different companies and both of them on the application said what would happen to the money if no beneficiary was alive. In neither case would the money go directly to the estate.






Now let’s see if I’ve got this right. First you say the policy “could” have a default beneficiary but then you qualify the error of your ways by saying MOST POLICIES DON’T HAVE A DEFAULT BENEFICIARY. Then you try to justify your first flawed premise by stating you purportedly sold two policies that state the money does not get paid to the estate……then some “guest” cites a Federal Court case that shows the type of litigation hell the heirs will go through without proper beneficiary designations as some type of proof your flawed premise is valid.



I’m LAUGHING OUT LOUD!!!



Keep posting I.E. I haven’t had this much fun on an Internet message board thread since the Kiplinger’s Annuity thread…...a classic example of head up their assterisk stock broker wheeler dealers.



…and then there’s this…

Anonymouse so-called Insurance Expert lastly writes:



Quote:
I just sold a Florida policy today. The preference beneficiary was the owner of the policy if living and if the owner is not living, it is the estate of the owner.




Well gee whiz, THEY ALL SAY THAT. And since the Owner and the Insured are almost always one and the same person THE PROCEEDS WILL BE PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE OWNER.



If the OWNER was not the INSURED and if the owner was listed as the beneficiary then the OWNER and the BENEFICIARY would be one and the same person then of course the death claim would be paid to the Owner/Beneficiary LIVING.



Go ahead and ban me Lori this guy is a certified clueless clown.


_________________

Gary Spicuzza, *SAFE

Copyright 1956.

No Rights Reserved.

*Self Appointed Financial Expert
GarySpicuzza
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message


Forum Expert

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 965

Location: West Pasco County, FL
243.98 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:11 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
Now what should be abundantly clear to anyone who may read this thread is the importance of proper beneficiary designations.
WOW! Found something I can agree with you on!
Quote:
There's nothing quite like litigation over life insurance proceeds, the lawyers love it because they know they are going to get paid.
UT-OH found another!

Quote:
Has this thread validated so called Insurance Expert’s premise that a preference clause makes everything “okay?”
I never got that impression at all...Just that if it's there...(ie preference clause)...then 'this' is how the money is paid 'if' no named or alive beneficiary..I never got anywhere in this thread he/she was saying or even implying that 'everything would be ok'..where did you get that?
Quote:
Federal Court case that shows the type of litigation hell the heirs will go through without proper beneficiary designations as some type of proof your flawed premise is valid.
Not 'will' Gary, could..I've seen two (personally) that have been paid without a lick of litigation...There would only be litigation if someone is contesting the payment to the successing 'default' beneficiary. It's not a lock that it will see the court house..you know that...
Quote:
THE PROCEEDS WILL BE PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE OWNER
In that particular policy, that is the language, that's what he's saying..not ALL by any stretch.


_________________

"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr.
Lori
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

Lori
Forum Expert

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8080

Location: Missouri
287.93 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:28 am   Post subject:   

This thread was started precisely because I realized that I had made a mistake when I claimed that most policies don't have default (preference) beneficiaries. I make mistakes and have no problem owning up to them. Some policies have them. Some don't. From having started to pay attention to this subject, it appears as if the majority of policies do have them.



Everyone is in agreement that proper beneficiary titles are important.



Read the court case again and you'll see that the problem wasn't caused solely from not having proper beneficiary designations. It was caused because it was a group policy and they couldn't determine which plan was in effect. There is something else that you should notice about the court case. There is no named beneficiary, and despite your claims, it is not in probate court. It is in district court. The only way that this will end up in probate court is if the district court determines that the policy in effect was the one with the estate as the default beneficiary.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:58 am   Post subject:   

The point made in this thread is simply that default beneficiaries exist so that it is incorrect to keep stating (over and over and over) that if a beneficiary is not named the policy will automatically be paid to the estate.



This is only true if no default beneficiary exists or the default beneficiary is the estate.



Gary for you to think that the owner and the insured are almost always the same person simply shows that you don't do business in the high net worth market or the corporate market. Regardless, the fact that the owner is the first default beneficiary is further proof that Florida law doesn't forbid default beneficiaries.



It doesn't matter if it usually will be paid to the estate in this situation since they are the same person. The key from a legal perspective is that it won't always be paid to the estate because it won't always be the same person. It won't always be paid to the estate because Florida doesn't have a law forbidding preference beneficiaries. PERIOD. END OF STORY.



My friend, Gary, is from the Show Me state. Show him a law forbidding preference beneficiaries.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:59 am   Post subject:   

To keep this very simple:

1)Many policies have preference beneficiaries.

2)This includes individual policies in the state of Florida.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.74 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:59 am   Post subject:   

I.E. how many times are you going to say the same convoluted thing?



No beneficiary designations will result in the life insurance proceeds being paid to the estate of the owner/insured.



It's that's simple.



Now if you want to qualify that or make a pointless point that in some very small circumstances that's not the case.....you go ahead and hang onto your pointless point.



This whole thread is pointless and to try to hammer your pointless point home that if beneficiary designations are left blank things will maybe "sometimes" be OKAY is insurance malpractice.



But please post again....I get a good laugh reading your posts with my morning coffee.



_________________

Gary Spicuzza, *SAFE

Copyright 1956.

No Rights Reserved.

*Self Appointed Financial Expert
GarySpicuzza
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message


Forum Expert

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 965

Location: West Pasco County, FL
243.98 Dollars($)

Quick Reply
Your Name
Subject
Message body
All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Page 5 of 6


Get a Quote
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

AmPmInsure on Facebook



Page loaded in 0.323 seconds.