Can my 86 year old mother have life insurance?

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:33 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
Given that a standard 86 year old had a standard life expectancy of 6 years i think that the life option blows the other option away.




Quote:
Also an 86 y/o female has a 4.8636% chance of living to age 100 not 10%




You are getting all buggered up on this point. If we take the population of all 86 year old females, the life expectancy is 6 years. From that same population, the chance of living to age 100 is 4.86%.



What if we included men in the calculation. (Just guessing here) The life expectancy is 5 years and the chance of living to age 100 is 2.8%.



Why would I do that calculation? Isn't it meaningless since we are only talking about females? Yes, it is meaningless. By the same token, a calculation using all females is meaningless because that isn't the population that we are using. The population for our purposes is only 86 year old females who are healthy enough to get a standard rating for life insurance. With this population, the life expectancy is probably closer to 8 years with a 10% chance of living to age 100.



I notice how you have conveniently never responded to how a life insurance company can afford to give somebody a 15% return if they die at life expectancy. We both know that they can’t which is how we know that life expectancy isn’t 6 years for this population.



By the way, if you can turn a $200,000 lump sum into a $291,000 death benefit guaranteed for life, I don’t have a problem with this. This is a big jump from the $265,000 at the beginning of this conversation. Unfortunately, the odds are against an 86 year old getting approved standard.
InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:52 pm   Post subject:   

I dont think it makes sense to buy a policy at age of 86. The money you pay in premiums would not be worth the returns. I would start looking at other direction and invest the money somewhere and bucktise it in different way rather than paying premiums

DV360
Member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 66


11.29 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:42 pm   Post subject:   

Orignal Poster wrote:

Quote:
I need to get a policy for my 86 year old mother for reasonable premium.


Okay, I'm parachuting back into this thread because at some point the "intellectual discussion" has to end.



The bottom line is there are only two core emotions that motivate anyone into buying life insurance.



NEED and GREED



Now why does OP want life insurance on his/her/its 86 year old mother?

Is OP going to suffer financial collapse if Mom dies? Probably not. Need to pay for the funeral? $6,000 isn't really much of an expense, Certainly Mom has some money or a home.



So what's the "other" reason.....well if you're 86 years old....you’re already at life expectancy.



I find OP’s post to from the GREED side of the only “other” reason anyone EVER buys life insurance.



All that being said, for apathetic men who may read this thread…..



There isn’t a more sincere love letter a man could write to his wife/woman/girlfriend/lover than a life insurance policy that names her as the primary beneficiary.



How many threads have been posted here about how Pops died and named girlfriend beneficiary and EX wife wants to know how to get her hands on that money?



Think about it.



Men, if you don’t give a damn about your wife/woman/girlfriend/lover’s financial well being after you’re dead and gone you must not really care that much about her in this life.



My 25 cents worth.



Edit: I "made" 41 cents for posting that literary masterpiece!


_________________

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
243.88 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:29 pm   Post subject: Get the man some help  

You don't know the reasons for the desire to purchase the life insuarance. All of your "think-you-know-it-all" arguments do not do anything to help the person seeking the insurance. You assume there is a home. Perhaps there is not a home or money lying around. Everyone understands that the premium on an 86 yr. old will be high. Duh! The question from the man is where can he find the insurance for someone this age. If you don't know the answer, don't respond!


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
dpba
Guest







PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:13 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
You don't know the reasons for the desire to purchase the life insuarance. All of your "think-you-know-it-all" arguments do not do anything to help the person seeking the insurance. You assume there is a home. Perhaps there is not a home or money lying around. Everyone understands that the premium on an 86 yr. old will be high. Duh! The question from the man is where can he find the insurance for someone this age. If you don't know the answer, don't respond!






Why are you assuming that everyone understands that the premium on an 86 year old will be high? It's all relative. The question wasn't who will insure an 86 year old. The question was who will insure him for a reasonable premium. "Reasonable" can only be defined in relationship to the alternatives. Stick around and maybe you'll learn a thing or two.
InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:17 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Stick around and maybe you'll learn a thing or two.
Shocked oh burn..


_________________

"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 06, 2009 5:16 am   Post subject:   

Genworth issued a policy on an 84 year old for me.



_________________

mkortz
New member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 24

Location: Orange County
7.85 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:17 am   Post subject: life insurance for 86 year old mom  

just for your info, I am not greedy nor am i looking forward to my mom leaving this earth but I know one day it will come. She is not a home owner nor am I. She just recently started having problems with her memory and I am just finding out that she has lost her policy. So, I hate to inform you that I have no motive behind checking to see if insurance is avail. for her. Have a blessed day and I pray that you are never faced with this same question.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
pocketchange
Guest







PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject:   

Pocketchange, you do have a motive. Nothing is wrong with having a motive. We all have a motive for virtually everything that we do.

InsuranceExpert
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 662


142.73 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:41 am   Post subject: your all missing the point  

2500 per year would still be reasonable for an 86 year old. 10 years on $25,000 is break even. the right policy would endow and you would be done paying it too.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
idiots
Guest







PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:41 am   Post subject: your all missing the point  

2500 per year would still be reasonable for an 86 year old. 10 years on $25,000 is break even. the right policy would endow and you would be done paying it too.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
idiots
Guest







PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:41 am   Post subject: your all missing the point  

2500 per year would still be reasonable for an 86 year old. 10 years on $25,000 is break even. the right policy would endow and you would be done paying it too.


_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
idiots
Guest







PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:14 am   Post subject:   

Here's what can happen when a very wealthy (older) woman is sold life insurance by agents who have less than her best interest in mind. I was an Expert for the plaintiff in this case - we won. This came from my website. Mark





Wealthy Family Sues Famous Lawyer Over Tax Plan



High-profile trusts and estates lawyer Jonathan Blattmachr is famous for his clever use of trusts, family limited partnerships and sophisticated insurance plans to reduce inheritance and gift taxes. But last summer a particular insurance tactic that he had employed caught the attention of the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service after it was detailed in a front-page article in The New York Times decrying the lucrative loophole for the ultra-rich.



Now, a family that bought the same type of policy made notorious by the Times -- and the subject of an official notice from the Service -- is suing Blattmachr and his law firm, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. The family, Charles B. Benenson, of Benenson Realty Company, his wife Jane and his son (Jane's stepson) William, claims that the plan they bought is not the one his family expected. In Los Angeles this June, the Benensons filed suit for breach of contract, malpractice and other charges.



Specifically, the Benensons claim that the insurance policy, which is supposed to pay $48.5 million in death benefits, is underfunded by about $1.5 million and might lapse within the next decade. The family blames Blattmachr, a New York-based partner at Milbank, as well as husband-and-wife insurance agents Louis and Amie Kreisberg; insurance agent Michael Brown; and the insurance companies that sold the policy. These firms include: Spectrum Consulting L.P. (also called Spectrum Financial Network Insurance and Investments, L.L.C.), where Brown is a managing partner and member; Executive Compensation Group, where Louis Kreisberg is an officer; CM Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Massachusetts Mutual Financial Group; and Massachusetts Mutual Financial Group.



The Benensons also allege that Blattmachr, who introduced them to the Kreisbergs and the other players in the deal, did not "fully disclose" that he also represented the other parties at the time of the introduction. (Louis Kreisberg is on the editorial board of Trusts & Estates magazine; Blattmachr is a contributor to the magazine.)



A spokesman for Milbank, who asked not to be identified, says: "Milbank's only client in the matter… was the Benensons, and they were faithfully served." Calling the suit "baseless" and "meritless," the firm spokesman said that the lawyers "intend to defend ourselves vigorously and we fully expect to prevail."



"Milbank and Mr. Blattmachr practice law," added the spokesman. "The Benensons are complaining about the insurance product that they acquired. Neither Milbank nor Mr. Blattmachr had anything to do with the client's choice of insurance products."



Kreisberg says that the lawsuit is frivolous and he fully intends to defend against it.



Brown and Mass Mutual declined to comment.



The Benensons are asking for the approximately $1.5 million they say it will take to fund the plan, a refund of the fees and commissions they paid to Blattmachr and the insurance agents, and punitive damages. Milbank Tweed's fee, according to the complaint, was $970,000; that included the work done on the deal and a tax opinion letter. Commissions to the insurance agents and broker, according to the suit, ran to more than $4.4 million. The Benensons also agreed to keep the details of the deal confidential, says one of their current lawyers, Virginia Miller of Anderson Kill & Olick, the law firm where former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani once worked.



IRS Warning



The Benensons' policy, a family reverse split dollar arrangement, became a popular estate planning strategy among the very wealthy from 2000 to 2002. Armed with a 1996 IRS ruling, Blattmachr and others presented such plans as a way of passing family wealth to heirs without estate tax and with greatly reduced gift taxes on the premiums.



"I'm not saying this is the best thing since sliced bread, but it's really good for pushing wealth forward tax-free," Blattmachr said, according to The New York Times article last July. The Times story noted that insurance companies had sold thousands of these policies, adding up to billions of dollars of insurance, the bulk of it issued since early 2001.



Shortly after publication of the newspaper article, the Treasury Department and IRS issued a notice refuting Blattmachr's interpretation of the gift tax required on premium payments. Before that notice, purchasers of these plans believed that they did not have to pay gift taxes on the entire amount of the premium price, but instead could value the premiums based either on government tables or the insurance company's published rates (usually lower than the amount actually paid.) The August Notice, 2002-59, changed that. It said that the donor could no longer use the government's premium rates or lower insurance company rates if the donor, or donor's estate, has the right to the insurance.



The August notice was accompanied by a press release stating that the IRS would not respect reverse split dollar arrangements "where the parties attempt to avoid taxes by using inappropriately high current term insurance rates, prepayment of premiums or other techniques to understate the value of taxable policy benefits."



The warning was loud and clear. Soon afterward, wealthy families stopped purchasing these types of plans, say insurance lawyers. But what about those families like the Benensons that already had such plans in their estates? Estate planning experts note that it is too soon for such plans to have been audited by the IRS.



For now, the Benensons are not complaining in their lawsuit about the tax consequences of the plan. But the suit, filed just before the statute of limitations for a possible complaint ran out, could be amended later. The family's lawyers say that the Times article helped spur the lawsuit in that it contributed to their disillusionment with Blattmachr and the insurance agents.



"The itch that they had was scratched by The New York Times and then drew blood," says their attorney Eugene Anderson, name partner of Anderson Kill.



Allegations



The Benenson family alleges that Blattmachr approached them in early 2000 with a life insurance plan that he proposed would be a perfect fit for the family. Blattmachr, who had represented the family for several years, according to the Benensons' current lawyers, allegedly presented the policy as an estate-planning tool that would result in lower taxes while taking account of the Benensons cash flow needs.



In 1986, New York real estate magnate Charles B. Benenson was listed in the Forbes 400 with a net worth estimated at more than $200 million. Benenson, a Yale grad, had built his father's Bronx apartment house business into a realty empire, investing with several other New York City builders, including Lawrence Tisch and Harry Helmsley.



The plan Blattmachr allegedly approved involved purchasing a $60 million life insurance policy on his wife Jane, who was 81 years old in the summer of 2000, when the deal was signed. In a complex sequence of events, the family is said to have used the Alaska Trust Company, run by Blattmachr's brother, Douglas, to create a trust to buy the insurance policy.



Other parties Benenson claims were involved in the transaction include the Kreisbergs, Michael Brown and companies headed by them, with Massachusetts Mutual Financial Group the ultimate insurer.



According to the complaint, the Benensons were supposed to pay about $23.5 million in premiums during the first three years of the policy, but also get back about $3.7 million in a partial surrender. Meanwhile, the policy proceeds were to decrease from $60 million in the first year to $48.5 million in year four, after which the plan was to pay $48.5 million regardless of when Jane died.



To make matters even more complicated, the policy was backdated to June of 1999, when Jane was still 80 because Mass Mutual does not issue this type of policy on people older than 80.



The family's current lawyers say the backdating, while perfectly legal in itself, ended up causing the confusion that led to the problems.



The Benensons thought they were agreeing to pay about $10.96 million in premiums in the first year, $7.2 million in the second year and $5.6 million in the third year. The family also expected to withdraw approximately $3.7 million in the second year.



But what the family did not realize was that the schedule of payments and withdrawals was also backdated one year. According to the Benensons, this meant that they were supposed to pay around $18 million, then receive $3.7 million back shortly upon signing the contract. Instead, they only paid around $10.9 million and never withdrew the $3.7 million.



The Benensons claim they did not know anything was amiss until June of 2001, when the Kreisbergs allegedly asked for an additional $577,616.



Relations between the Benensons and the defendants soon unraveled.



Who Understood What?



One of the steps the Benensons took was to hire Richard Harris, a New Jersey insurance agent, as a consultant. "From a life insurance point of view, in terms of all the twists and turns, this is rocket science," says Harris of the intricate deal. He alleges that the family never received all of the materials they were entitled to. Without that paperwork, he says, there is no way the Benensons could have fully understood the policy they had purchased.



Harris also concludes that if the family now takes out the $3.7 million, the policy will be left underfunded and will lapse within the next 10 years, before Jane's 93rd birthday. These numbers are somewhat inexact, says Harris. Benenson attorney Virginia Miller calculates that the policy would lapse even earlier, before Jane's 91st birthday.



Regardless, Harris and Miller both say that it is their understanding that the family did not realize they had to pay two years' worth of premiums upon signing. Had this been clearer, the family might not have done the deal. "If they thought they had to put up $18 million up front instead of $11 million up front, they might not have gone ahead with transaction," says Harris.



This is also where Blattmachr's representation of both the insurance agents and Benensons becomes problematic, say the Benensons' lawyers. As the agents' commission was dependent on the deal going through, they had a motive to see it close. That motive, they allege, created a potential conflict of interest that was not "fully disclosed" as early as it could have been.



Miller says that Blattmachr did disclose the potential conflict of interest before the family signed the deal. But, she says, the Benensons did not agree in writing to waive the potential conflict of interest, as is required by legal ethics rules in California -- where the lawsuit was filed and where William Benenson, trustee of the insurance trust, lives. Miller also claims that the Benensons did not fully understand the ramifications of the potential conflict.



Yet another allegation in the complaint is that Blattmachr did not disclose his relationship with the Alaska Trust Company, whose president and CEO is Jonathan's brother, Douglas Blattmachr.



Even so, courts looking at the Benenson situation might not view the potential conflict as problematic, say legal ethics experts. Malpractice claims frequently contain allegations that an attorney did not disclose a conflict of interest, says legal ethics scholar John Leubsdorf, a professor at Rutgers School of Law, Newark. But, adds Leubsdorf, disgruntled clients can't prove malpractice simply because there is a conflict of interest. There also has to be a problem with the legal services received and, if the lawyer provided good representation, the conflict will not in itself be grounds for a lawsuit.



The Benensons' complaint lists a variety of other matters about which they contend they were misled. For example, the Benensons believed the agents' compensation would be about $2 million to $2.5 million, but now say that the agents and their broker together received more than $4.4 million.



The legal complaint does not provide an explanation for the Benensons' mistaken belief about the fees, but Harris claims that the amount was too deeply buried in the fine print.



Another, related allegation is that no one discussed with the Benensons the possibility of funding the deal with private placement life insurance. Harris says that commissions are usually much lower with private placement life insurance because they are separately negotiated.



"Generally, when those things become negotiated," says Harris, "the numbers are hugely different." He estimates that the commission only would have been $600,000 with private placement.



An Industry Watches



For all of the allegations in the complaint, the one claim that is missing -- an accusation that Blattmachr gave bad tax advice -- is what industry observers are most interested in seeing litigated.



Even in the pre-August 2002 heyday of the family reverse split dollar plan, tax and insurance experts were divided about whether it was a legitimate way of lessening taxes. Some think that Blattmachr might yet prevail should the IRS fight the tax breaks in court.



But others remark that these types of aggressive tax-lessening policies were always a train wreck waiting to happen.



"Highly paid people tempt clients with ways to circumvent the intent of the tax laws," says Joseph Belth, a professor emeritus of insurance at Indiana University. But, he says, purchasers of these aggressive policies frequently don't realize the ramifications of their plans. "In most policies issued for non-traditional products, there's a great deal of risk on the policy-holder," says Belth. "The whole nature of the risks assumed by a policy-holder are not made completely clear at the time of sale."



_________________

Please feel free to go to my website at www.markcolbert.com or, if you have a specific question, you can email me directly. I hope I can answer any questions you might have. If not, I can certainly find an answer right away.
InsInvestigator
Community Consultant
Leave a quick message

InsInvestigator

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 624

Location: Central California
32.85 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:44 am   Post subject:   

Interesting article.....$4.4 million....wow. Someone send a few of those cases my way please. At least we'll get them done right.



If I ever worked on a case that large, I'd document, document, and then document some more every step of the way. I'd probably also ask permission to record all conversations when explaining how the policy works. Sounds like the agents really screwed up on that one.

dgoldenz
Senior member
Leave a quick message



Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 392

Location: Virginia
5.24 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:26 am   Post subject:   

great post mark...man, when you're dealing with BIG money...soooooo many things can happen...alas, that will likely NEVER be something I need to worry about. Wink



_________________

"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($)

Quick Reply
Your Name
Subject
Message body
All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  
Page 3 of 7


Get a Quote
Ask Community Experts

flash plugin

Quick Links

Must See

Community

Hot topics in forums

Latest in blogs

    Connection Error: Connection refused