Can an ex-spouse draw life insurance benefits?

Message Author
ampm-bookmark
delicious-small Add to delicious
yahoomyweb-small Add to YahooMyWeb
blinklist-small Add to BlinkList
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:05 pm   Post subject:   

Two things. In a "best case scenario", estate tax exemption might make it to $2,000,000. But we'll all have to watch Congress in the next 12 months -- because if they don't act at all (which they don't have to due to the EGTRRA sunset clause), it WILL roll back to $1,000,000 -- the amount it was scheduled to increase to when EGTRRA was enacted in 2001.



Second, It is NOT normally possible to obtain life insurance on an adult person without their knowledge or cooperation! (Parents commonly obtain life insurance on their children without their knowledge or consent, and this is acceptable because they are minors who are not capable of contrracting.



Why not? Because all life insurance applicants age 18 or older MUST sign the application to acknowledge that the information provided in the application BY THEM is correct. An owner who is not also the insured must also sign the application, acknowledging the presence of insurable interest.



If any person other than the insured signs the application "as" or "in place of" the insured, it is not a valid application and can be voided by the insurer even beyond the normal 2-year contestability period (the point in time where the policy usually becomes incontestable).



Even STOLI transactions usually wait until the policy becomes incontestable before ownership is assigned to the originator who has no insurable interest when the application is made.



_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:44 pm   Post subject:   

Max, it's VERY dangerous to know things that aren't true. You really need to ask more questions and do less pontificating.



1)You are wrong that it $2,000,000 is the best case scenario. I'm not saying that it won't be $2,000,000, but there is no reason to make an assumption that they will lower from where it is now.



2)Yes, a life insurance applicant must sign an application. Yes, nobody can sign in place of the insured. However, it is NOT a legal requirement that an insured who isn't the owner sign a life insurance application.



Ex. Max is my employee. He is my best employee. I want to buy a $1,000,000 policy on him without his knowledge. It is absolutely possible to do this!


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







PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:55 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Max, it's VERY dangerous to know things that aren't true. . . . However, it is NOT a legal requirement that an insured who isn't the owner sign a life insurance application.




You are so wrong, Fakadur. First, as to your subpoint (2).



How does anyone other than the insured provide the federally-required HIPAA consent to release medical records? How does anyone other than the insured give consent to HIV/AIDS testing (required in California and most other states -- unless the insurer does not test anyone for the diseases)?



Life insurance contracts are two-party contracts between the insurer and the insured When an owner/applicant other than the insured is also involved, the contract is known as a "third-party contract". The insured CANNOT lwafully be left out of the process.



As you will see in the actual life insurance application examples provided in the attachment, the insured is required by the insurer (AKA: meeting the legal requirement of contract law to form a contract between insurer and insured) to provide their signature attesting to the correctness of answers provided in the application and, since the passage of HIPAA in the 1990s, the required consent to obtain/release "protected medical information."



So, to what country were you referring? No US-issued life insurance application for an adult will be received by an insurer without the insured's signature. Even Prudential requires insureds as young as age 8 to sign their application (when otherwise being submitted by their adult parent/guardian who has legal capacity to contract on the child's behalf).



And here are some sections from the California Insurance Code that bear relevance to the general discussion of applying for insurance. In this regard, California law is not unlike insurance law in most other states.



CIC 286. An interest in property insured must exist when the insurance takes effect, and when the loss occurs, but need not exist in the meantime; and interest in the life or health of a person insured must exist when the insurance takes effect, but need not exist thereafter or when the loss occurs.



CIC 10110.1 (d) An insurable interest shall be required to exist at the time the contract of life or disability insurance becomes effective, but need not exist at the time the loss occurs.



CIC 10110.1 (e) Any contract of life or disability insurance procured or caused to be procured upon another individual is void unless the person applying for the insurance has an insurable interest in the individual insured at the time of the application.



CIC 10110.2. An insurer shall be entitled to rely upon all statements, declarations, and representations made by an applicant for insurance relative to the insurable interest that the applicant has in the insured, and no insurer shall incur any legal liability except as set

forth in the policy, by virtue of any untrue statements,

declarations, or representations so relied upon in good faith by the insurer. [NOTE: answers to medical history questions in individual life applications is not "relative to the insurable interest". Only in the case of minor applicants will an insurer rely on the health statements made by an adult about the minor child. All others must be made by, and signed for by, the insured.]



CIC 10110.3. (a) An insurer may not issue an individual life insurance policy to an applicant that insures the life of the applicant's spouse unless the applicant's spouse has signed the policy application or has otherwise been notified in advance of the issuance of the policy.



CIC 10113. Every policy of life, disability, or life and disability insurance issued or delivered within this State on or after the first day of January, 1936, by any insurer doing such business within this State shall contain and be deemed to constitute the entire contract between the parties and nothing shall be incorporated therein by

reference to any constitution, by-laws, rules, application or other writings, of either of the parties thereto or of any other person, unless the same are indorsed upon or attached to the policy; and all statements purporting to be made by the insured shall, in the absence of fraud, be representations and not warranties. Any waiver of the provisions of this section shall be void.



Your "example" sucks! "Best employee" or otherwise, you are not going to be able to apply for insurance on his life, regardless of who or what the beneficiary is, without his knowledge and written consent/signature on the application. California law (several states have followed this lead) in the aftermath of the "Wal*Mart" incident in 2002 or 2003 specifically prohibits an employer from obtaining "corporate-owned life insurance" (and, no, you don't have to be incorporated to obtain COLI) in which it is the beneficiary if the employee is not an "exempt" employee (defined in both state and federal labor law). The whole CIC section is far too long to print here, but you can look it up: CIC 10110.4 Insurance obtained without the employee's consent is fraudulently obtained and the policy would be void upon the insurer learning the truth.



Now, as to estate taxes, your subpoint (1), YOU need to do a little more study on the issue. Because it is not necessary for Congress to do ANYTHING in the coming 12 months for the following to occur. If they do something, it will likely be to set the exemption limit somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000,000. They are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to continue the 2009 exemption of $3.500,000 after 12-31-2010, because they need the revenue to balance the Obamacare cost equation.



Anyway, here's the reality that Congress established in 2001 when it voted to enact EGTRRA. You can find this information anywhere on the Internet. The following excerpt is taken from Wikipedia in it's entirely:



Future of the Estate Tax and Capital Gains Taxes on Inherited Property



Congress has passed tax laws that have made numerous, temporary changes to both the estate tax rate and the exemption amount. Since 2002, the top rate has decreased incrementally from 50%, and the exemption amount has increased incrementally from $1 million. In 2009 the rate is 45% and the exemption amount is $3.5 million. On January 1, 2010 a "one year repeal" of the tax is scheduled to be effectuated by a temporary, one-year-only rate of 0%, but on January 1, 2011 the estate tax is scheduled to return at a top rate of 55% and the exemption amount is scheduled to drop back down to $1.0 million.[citation needed] Many legislative tax analysts suspect that Congress and President Obama will not permit this legislatively scheduled repeal-and-increase scheme to actually go into effect between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. To avoid the temporary repeal and subsequent reinstatement of the tax at the higher rate, the 2009 rate of 45% and exemption amount of 3.5 million could be extended beyond December 31, 2009, or the rate and exemption amount could be permanently fixed at some amount greater than zero before that date.



If the law does not change, for 2010 property transferred from decedents will be treated as if it is transferred by gift. This means the basis of the property for calculating capital gains when the recipient eventually sells the property will be the same basis as in the hands of the decedent. This is generally called carryover basis. However most recipients will effectively get the same result they would receive under present law, because section 1022 allows the executor of an estate to allocate up to 1.3 million in basis for singles and 3 million for surviving spouses to the property of the estate. This will effectively give most recipients a tax basis in the property equal to the full market value ie. "step up basis". See 26 U.S.C. § 1022.




Given the state of affairs in Washington, DC, where the major distraction is finding 60 votes in the Senate to bring Obamacare to a vote is becoming increasingly unlikely, there has not been, and will not be, any congressional action to extend the 2009 $3,500,000 exemption and tax rate into 2010 as speculated above.



So 2010 will be the perfect year in which to die. 2011 and beyond are not such good prospects. The estate tax could be, as I stated, as bad as a $1,000,000 exemption or, my best guess at a "best-case" scenario, $2,000,000. Anything higher is a "gift" from Congress. But if a "public option" makes its way into Obamacare, there is no way to finance it without the expected revenue from estate taxes at a taxable level significantly lower than $3,500,000 and a statutory 55% rate.



So go do your homework and report back.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:57 pm   Post subject:   

Quote:
Max, it's VERY dangerous to know things that aren't true. . . . However, it is NOT a legal requirement that an insured who isn't the owner sign a life insurance application.




You are so wrong, Fakadur. First, as to your subpoint (2).



How does anyone other than the insured provide the federally-required HIPAA consent to release medical records? How does anyone other than the insured give consent to HIV/AIDS testing (required in California and most other states -- unless the insurer does not test anyone for the diseases)?



Life insurance contracts are two-party contracts between the insurer and the insured When an owner/applicant other than the insured is also involved, the contract is known as a "third-party contract". The insured CANNOT lawfully be left out of the process.



As you will see in the actual life insurance application examples provided in the attachment, the insured is required by the insurer (AKA: meeting the legal requirement of contract law to form a contract between insurer and insured) to provide their signature attesting to the correctness of answers provided in the application and, since the passage of HIPAA in the 1990s, the required consent to obtain/release "protected medical information."



So, to what country were you referring? No US-issued life insurance application for an adult will be received by an insurer without the insured's signature. Even Prudential requires insureds as young as age 8 to sign their application (when otherwise being submitted by their adult parent/guardian who has legal capacity to contract on the child's behalf).



And here are some sections from the California Insurance Code that bear relevance to the general discussion of applying for insurance. In this regard, California law is not unlike insurance law in most other states.



CIC 286. An interest in property insured must exist when the insurance takes effect, and when the loss occurs, but need not exist in the meantime; and interest in the life or health of a person insured must exist when the insurance takes effect, but need not exist thereafter or when the loss occurs.



CIC 10110.1 (d) An insurable interest shall be required to exist at the time the contract of life or disability insurance becomes effective, but need not exist at the time the loss occurs.



CIC 10110.1 (e) Any contract of life or disability insurance procured or caused to be procured upon another individual is void unless the person applying for the insurance has an insurable interest in the individual insured at the time of the application.



CIC 10110.2. An insurer shall be entitled to rely upon all statements, declarations, and representations made by an applicant for insurance relative to the insurable interest that the applicant has in the insured, and no insurer shall incur any legal liability except as set

forth in the policy, by virtue of any untrue statements,

declarations, or representations so relied upon in good faith by the insurer. [NOTE: answers to medical history questions in individual life applications is not "relative to the insurable interest". Only in the case of minor applicants will an insurer rely on the health statements made by an adult about the minor child. All others must be made by, and signed for by, the insured.]



CIC 10110.3. (a) An insurer may not issue an individual life insurance policy to an applicant that insures the life of the applicant's spouse unless the applicant's spouse has signed the policy application or has otherwise been notified in advance of the issuance of the policy.



CIC 10113. Every policy of life, disability, or life and disability insurance issued or delivered within this State on or after the first day of January, 1936, by any insurer doing such business within this State shall contain and be deemed to constitute the entire contract between the parties and nothing shall be incorporated therein by

reference to any constitution, by-laws, rules, application or other writings, of either of the parties thereto or of any other person, unless the same are indorsed upon or attached to the policy; and all statements purporting to be made by the insured shall, in the absence of fraud, be representations and not warranties. Any waiver of the provisions of this section shall be void.



Your "example" sucks! "Best employee" or otherwise, you are not going to be able to apply for insurance on his life, regardless of who or what the beneficiary is, without his knowledge and written consent/signature on the application. California law (several states have followed this lead) in the aftermath of the "Wal*Mart" incident in 2002 or 2003 specifically prohibits an employer from obtaining "corporate-owned life insurance" (and, no, you don't have to be incorporated to obtain COLI) in which it is the beneficiary if the employee is not an "exempt" employee (defined in both state and federal labor law). The whole CIC section is far too long to print here, but you can look it up: CIC 10110.4 Insurance obtained without the employee's consent is fraudulently obtained and the policy would be void upon the insurer learning the truth.



Now, as to estate taxes, your subpoint (1), YOU need to do a little more study on the issue. Because it is not necessary for Congress to do ANYTHING in the coming 12 months for the following to occur. If they do something, it will likely be to set the exemption limit somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000,000. They are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to continue the 2009 exemption of $3.500,000 after 12-31-2010, because they need the revenue to balance the Obamacare cost equation.



Anyway, here's the reality that Congress established in 2001 when it voted to enact EGTRRA. You can find this information anywhere on the Internet. The following excerpt is taken from Wikipedia in it's entirely:



Future of the Estate Tax and Capital Gains Taxes on Inherited Property



Congress has passed tax laws that have made numerous, temporary changes to both the estate tax rate and the exemption amount. Since 2002, the top rate has decreased incrementally from 50%, and the exemption amount has increased incrementally from $1 million. In 2009 the rate is 45% and the exemption amount is $3.5 million. On January 1, 2010 a "one year repeal" of the tax is scheduled to be effectuated by a temporary, one-year-only rate of 0%, but on January 1, 2011 the estate tax is scheduled to return at a top rate of 55% and the exemption amount is scheduled to drop back down to $1.0 million.[citation needed] Many legislative tax analysts suspect that Congress and President Obama will not permit this legislatively scheduled repeal-and-increase scheme to actually go into effect between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. To avoid the temporary repeal and subsequent reinstatement of the tax at the higher rate, the 2009 rate of 45% and exemption amount of 3.5 million could be extended beyond December 31, 2009, or the rate and exemption amount could be permanently fixed at some amount greater than zero before that date.



If the law does not change, for 2010 property transferred from decedents will be treated as if it is transferred by gift. This means the basis of the property for calculating capital gains when the recipient eventually sells the property will be the same basis as in the hands of the decedent. This is generally called carryover basis. However most recipients will effectively get the same result they would receive under present law, because section 1022 allows the executor of an estate to allocate up to 1.3 million in basis for singles and 3 million for surviving spouses to the property of the estate. This will effectively give most recipients a tax basis in the property equal to the full market value ie. "step up basis". See 26 U.S.C. § 1022.




Given the state of affairs in Washington, DC, where the major distraction is finding 60 votes in the Senate to bring Obamacare to a vote is becoming increasingly unlikely, there has not been, and will not be, any congressional action to extend the 2009 $3,500,000 exemption and tax rate into 2010 as speculated above.



So 2010 will be the perfect year in which to die. 2011 and beyond are not such good prospects. The estate tax could be, as I stated, as bad as a $1,000,000 exemption or, my best guess at a "best-case" scenario, $2,000,000. Anything higher is a "gift" from Congress. But if a "public option" makes its way into Obamacare, there is no way to finance it without the expected revenue from estate taxes at a taxable level significantly lower than $3,500,000 and a statutory 55% rate.



So go do your homework and report back.


_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:12 am   Post subject:   

Max, that was some long post!



Let's make the following assumptions.

1) I have an insurable interest in your life.

2) You are not my hourly employee.

3) You are not my wife.

4) An insurance company is willing to issue a policy without medical information from you.



Now, please show us anything in the California insurance code that makes this illegal.



Here's a clue for you. It's legal!



This is strike three for you, Max. You were wrong about default beneficiaries. You were wrong in your understanding of how secondary guarantees in UL policies work and now you are wrong about this.



I would take no joy in pointing out your mistakes if you didn't act like such a know it all.


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







PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:15 am   Post subject:   

Thanks for the Wikipedia plagiarism in regards to estate taxes. My guess is $3.5 million. Your guess is $2.0 million. Who confuses a guess with a best case scenario...other than you?


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







PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:47 am   Post subject:   

Farla



It's only plagiarism if you use the material without attributing its source, which I plainly did, as you acknowledged. Read other sources in the financial planning community to get a sense of what Congress is thinking. It's not $3.5 million.



Sdlkfjas . . . your post said you wanted a $1,000,000 policy on your employee. No insurer underwrites that much without a medical app. Try again.



The specifics of who signs a contract, if you don't also see it delineated in the insurance code, is covered under contract law (Civil Code, etc. -- depends on the state). For a contract to have legal force, it must be voluntarily entered into by the parties to the contract. The insured is ALWAYS a party to an insurance contract -- language internal to the policy acknowledges that, and states that the insured will become the new owner if the existing owner dies prior to the insured and has not assigned the policy to another party. If not also the owner, the insured simply has no power to exercise the rights of ownership. But the owner doesn't get a contract of life insurance on a person without their knowledge and consent. Sorry.



Companies such as TransAmerica (and others) that market "jet issue" non-underwritten policies for amounts up to $50,000 still require the signature of the insured on their applications, because they know it's not going to be a legal contract without the signature. Obviously, as I've already alluded to, anyone could submit a fraudulent app for insurance -- it wouldn't be a first -- with a forged signature. But your scenario doesn't wash.



So, I ask you to show us an insurance company that writes $1,0000,000 policies on adult persons with capacity to contract who do not sign the application. There are none.



_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:05 am   Post subject:   

I can very easily prove that you are wrong on this one. I'll make a deal with you. I'll prove you wrong. In exchange for giving you this learning experience, I would like you to start a thread that says, "My name is Max Herr and I don't know what I don't know."



If I'm wrong, I'll agree to stop posting here.



We'll let someone impartial like Insurance Teacher or Insurance Investigator be the judge of who is correct.



Do we have a deal?


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







PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:26 am   Post subject:   

I'll start a thread on the topic of required signatures on a life insurance application.



Agreed?



_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:42 pm   Post subject:   

Am I agreeing that you are starting a new thread or are we agreeing that you will start a thread that says, "My name is Max Herr and I don't know what I don't know"?



I'll gladly supply the proof once you agree that you'll do this.


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







PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:47 am   Post subject: insurance  

(Hopefully no one will 'bite my head off' over this...) I was looking on the website that I have Life Insurance for my son. I was scanning different 'options', etc. I DID come across a section that talks about insuring someone who is "18 years of age and older." According to what I read, the Insured (if 18 years or older) DOES have to sign a Life Insurance policy. So....if my son was 18 years old now, he would have to sign the Life Insurance policy that I started on him.

sdchargersfan
Senior member
Leave a quick message

sdchargersfan

Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 2052


5.14 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:21 am   Post subject:   

If you folks don't stop sniping at eachother and acting like a bunch of 7-year olds, I'm going to lock this thread. Several things should be fairly obvious to everyone participating in this wonderful grenade-chuckin' contest:



1. There ARE definitely instances whereby you can purchase life insurance on the life of another without the others' signature. So, those of you who are still whining about this- STOP WHINING ABOUT THIS.



2. It's pretty apparent that different states have different laws. For instance, Max quoted California law (which, by the way, is another country because of your truly weird community property laws) and I cited Oregon law. I could cite law from every other stinkin' state and you would see minor differences. So, those of you who are still whining about this- STOP WHINING ABOUT THIS.



3. About the absurd notion of a carrier issuing a $1,000,000 policy without a medical. GET OVER IT- it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.



4. Can a parent effect coverage on a child? Should an agent physically view the child prior to application completion? Are there instances in which a child has to sign the app? Do situations exist whereby an employer can purchase coverage on the life of an employee? Are insurable interest requirements important? Are estate consequences something that should be considered when looking at amounts of life insurance? Will the Chicago Cubs ever win a World Series in my lifetime? YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES...No Sad



So, I have a request. While I absolutely appreciate the veritable fountain of knowledge being vomited forth here, I would ask that you maintain some modicum of decorum while venturing out with your comments. If I were a guest visiting the site, I would be (1) highly amused, (2) pretty confused, and as a poster, feel (3) kind of abused.



Get my drift? Wink



InsTeacher Cool

InsTeacher
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

InsTeacher
Forum Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1398

Location: Oregon, USA
127.26 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:43 pm   Post subject:   

Points well taken. Enough said.



_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:37 am   Post subject:   

Quote:
3. About the absurd notion of a carrier issuing a $1,000,000 policy without a medical. GET OVER IT- it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.




Please let's stop posting incorrect information. Contact Petersens if you doubt me. These are not typical cases. These policies are almost always multi-million dollar policies. In fact, I don't know if they'll write one that isn't. No medical is needed.



This isn't like buying a whole life policy. It's not even like buying a 20 year level term policy. It's a one year policy and it will end earlier if the insurable interest no longer exists.



FACT: One can legally buy a multi-million dollar insurance policy in the U.S. without the insured knowing and without the insured signing the application and without any medical exams or medical records. There must be an insurable interest.

_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Correct information
Guest







PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:27 am   Post subject:   

Yes, and it's a policy issued through Lloyd's of London and so has no responsibility to adhere to domestic insurance regulations. Not that it's a bad thing. But it's not the kind of policy that the average person visiting this site is interested in.



The persons asking for insight here are going to submit an application with a company subject to domestic laws, and has been pointed out, the scenarios you have posted just won't wash in the regulated, domestic market.



It's like saying, "But of course my Lamborghini does 180 mph, and I can show you." Not on any freeway in Southern California during rush hour, and not lawfully on any public road or highway anywhere else in the US. But transport the vehicle to the Autobahn in Germany, and your claim is valid.



So let's just shake hands and agree that we're both right and both wrong -- based on one very narrow example.



_________________

CA-licensed Life & Disability Analyst. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Also investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support/expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.
MaxHerr
Forum Expert
Leave a quick message

MaxHerr
Forum Expert

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 7888

Location: Pomona CA
107.69 Dollars($)

Quick Reply
Your Name
Subject
Message body
All times are GMT
 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Page 3 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 0.327 seconds.