by Guest » Mon Jul 27, 2009 07:07 pm
She and I have been divorced almost 20 yrs but she seems to be on a crash course with fate. I'd like to have a policy in place where if the unthinkable eventually happens our son can benefit from it. I don't want her to know about it as it may give her an incentive to live.
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 01:55 pm Post Subject:
I don't know about the legalities. However, since the wife isn't signing anything, it has to be close to a guaranteed issue policy. This is because the insurance company won't be able to get any medical information to find out about her health. This will make the policy extremely expensive and a really bad financial move unless the spouse is dying.
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 01:30 am Post Subject: insurance
OMG!!...I read the entire thread. This ALMOST seems like the OP wants to do things 'under the table', so to speak. Of course, you're able to insure anyone you please....but, why an EX? I know you're concerned about your son,so...why not put your son on a Life Insurance policy, instead of your EX? Seems to me (personal opionion, of course,..) that you STILL want to be 'accountable' for your EX. ..still want to 'provide' for her, etc.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:50 pm Post Subject:
SDCharger, you are not able to insure anyone you please. There must be an insurable interest between the owner and the insured.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:03 pm Post Subject:
That's certainly not true, if you named the mistress as the beneficary, the poor wife can't do a thing about it..
Maybe it's just here in California, but more than one 20+ year agent has spoken about it happening here.
I really don't know though.
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 09:54 am Post Subject: Life insurance
There must be an insurable interest between the owner and the insured.
"Insurable interest?"....do you mean the 'relationship' between you nad the person you want to insure?! For example: child, wife, relative, etc.? Or....am I 'way off base' with this?Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:30 am Post Subject:
You are not off base. It's just that "Insurable Interest" is more of a financial relationship than a relationship.
One always has an insurable interest in their own life. Usually, non-corporate policies are written with the owner and the insured being the same person so insurable interest isn't an issue.
I can't buy insurance on you because your death would have no financial impact on me. If we were business partners, I could. If I was going to raise your son if you died, I could buy a policy on you.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 04:26 pm Post Subject:
I'm afraid this whole thread is so ludicrous it's impossible to read with a straight face. I guess its time to find out which carriers are issuing life insurance policies without informing the insured. Does anyone want to make any bets on whether brad@brookfield partners will tell me who he's submitting these cases to?
Yes, life insurance polices are issued all the time without the insured's knowledge. THIS IS ILLEGAL and agents have had their licenses permanently revoked for doing so.
In the United States, many of the constraints regarding Insurable Interest were relaxed (if not done away with completely) in around 1994. This happened because members of the Gay community fought to name their partners as beneficiaries and the insurance companies were "legally inclined" to allow it. Afterwhich, most of the insurable interest requirements were lifted. Granted, there are still areas, insuring minors, estate planning, gifting, etc., in which an element of insurable interest must exist but, I'm afraid this is mostly on a case-by-case basis.
I'll send Brad a message and see what happens.
Mark
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 04:52 pm Post Subject:
Re: Posts made to ampminsure.com on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 06 Aug 2009 11:58
"I have a carrier that will insure someone without their knowledge. It is more expensive, but it is possible.
If you are interested feel free to e-mail me at brad @ brookfieldpartners.com
PS. for those agents that thought it wasn't possible...I own a brokerage firm, and have worked with agents to insure this risk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 06 Aug 2009 16:46
Of course it's legal. The insurer requires an agreement in place for divorce. From that, it shows a form of insurable interest.
Also, no medical exam is needed to complete.
It is most similar to a one year term policy, except that the policy is underwritten annually. But it is doable, it is just more expensive over the long run.
Most agents think this is not right because your average carrier doesn't insure this risk, and that's what you learn when you start in the business.....doesn't mean it's not possible.
If you know someone that may be a fit, let me know. I own a brokerage general agency, and we work with insurance agents. We work a lot with specialized risks, and this is one of them. In my opinion it is better off getting a fully underwritten contract, but it is not neccessary. Some cases you can't, and this may be one of them.
Hello Brad,
Please forward the name of the insurance carrier(s) you were referring to in the above posts. I would like to ask them a few questions regarding their life insurance policy issue requirements.
I look forward to your reply.
Mark J Colbert
Life Insurance Faud Investigations
www.markcolbert.com
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 05:14 pm Post Subject:
InsuranceInvestigator, I don't have the expertise necessary to know if your quote is correct.
Yes, life insurance polices are issued all the time without the insured's knowledge. THIS IS ILLEGAL
This certainly seems to me like something that would be handled on a state to state basis. We obviously have the exception for kiddie policies.
However, based upon the link below, and assuming no changes in the law since 2004, it appears to be legal in the state of NY, but only if the insured is the spouse of the owner.
http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ogco2004/rg040319.htm
Assuming that is the case in NY, I would be very surprised if at least one state doesn't allow it even if the people aren't married provided that there is insurable interest.
I look forward to your feedback.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 05:16 pm Post Subject:
By the way, regardless of whether it is allowed, it seems awfully stupid unless their is a plan for the insured to die pretty quickly. The policy would have to be extremely expensive since there is no way to properly underwrite it.
Personally, I can't name a single carrier that will write a policy without the insured signing. This doesn't mean that they don't exist. I simply don't know.
Add your comment