by Guest » Tue Nov 03, 2009 02:04 pm
Me and my boyfriend have been together for 3 years. We live together. He owns the house we now live in and makes the mortgage paments on that property. I pay all the other bills such as food, utilities, internet, cable. I was wanted to get a life insuracne plan to protect me in case something happens to him, just enouph to pay off the house and other expenses. Can I purchase life insurance on him.Or does he need to purchase it and put me as the beneficiary?
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 08:14 am Post Subject:
Sorry you don't like my examples. The fact remains, no insurable interest is the reason the policies were voided. The fraud and other criminal charges are in addition to that.
All I'm saying is that if there is no legitimate insurable interest at the time of application, it would be a shame to discover that after someone pays premiums for a long time and then dies.
if an insurance company approves the application, a claim won't be declined based upon insurable interest.
This part of your statement is correct. The phrase that precedes it is the problem.
I'm simply saying that if a boyfriend/girlfriend live together
Say anything you'd like. It doesn't mean there is insurable interest. The best course of action is as I have indicated, each applies for insurance in their own right, and if they each later want to assign ownership to the other there will be no problem. Guarantees the policies will never be subject to a claim denial as long as premiums are paid.
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 02:07 pm Post Subject:
Max,
Of course, I don't like your examples. If the best examples that you can come up with are cases that involve criminal fraud, they aren't very comparable to what I'm talking about which involves 100% complete honesty.
Your way will guarantee that a policy won't be subject to a claim denial.
Answering the questions honestly will also guarantee that that the claim won't be denied.
If there is no legitimate insurable interest at the time of application, it is the insurance company's responsibility to deny the application. They don't have the ability to deny the claim in the future in the absence of fraud.
My way may cause an application to be denied. It won't cause a claim not to be paid.
I am not saying that a boyfriend/girlfriend have insurable interest. I'm saying that they might. I'm also saying that if they live together, it is almost certain that there is an insurance company that will give them coverage (many won't) and if one does, they won't then be able to use the exact same information to deny the claims.
In your examples, the policies were only approved because the applications were fraudulent. That is a world apart from our conversation.
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 05:01 pm Post Subject:
cases that involve criminal fraud
This is my final response, because I'm really not interested in trying to educate you in the legal aspects of life insurance, because you live in a fantasy world where what "you think" is what is real. But it is not.
Read any insurance code about INCONTESTABILITY -- which in most states, if not all, renders a policy INVIOLATE after two years. In California, and all other states, as far as I know, even a policy FRAUDULENTLY applied for becomes incontestable after two years.
BUT THE ABSENCE OF INSURABLE INTEREST at the time the contract was issued ESCAPES the two year time limitation.
The fraud in each of the cases I referred to is a separate offense under the law. If a policy is properly issued and the claim is fraudulent -- which is what the case was with Olga and Helen, since the policies were applied for in the names of the insureds, not Olga or Helen, but they were named the beneficiaries, and they later murdered the insureds to collect the death benefit -- the claim is still payable . . . just not to the party that committed fraud.
Olga and Helen understood the business about insurable interest. Their later crimes created the fraud. You fail to understand that.
But when there is no insurable interest, as in the case of the "phantom" insured, the policy is VOID and no claim is payable. Whether anyone gets prosecuted for fraud is up to the state. Insurable interest is up to the insurance company.
Unlike health insurance, failure to fully complete underwriting in life insurance does not obligate the insurer to the claim if they can later prove there was no insurable interest.
EVEN 30 or 40 YEARS later. It matters not whether I can find a perfect example to fit your criteria. I'm sure there is one somewhere, but I have better things to do than your legal research at no cost.
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 07:02 pm Post Subject:
Max, I'm asking you to do my legal research because I've done the research and can't find what you are claiming. You also haven't been able to find what you are claiming.
I agree that an absence of insurable interest at the time of contract issuance escapes the two year limitation. However, a company can't use the identical criteria that they used to approve an application to turn around and deny the application.
It wasn't just Olga and Helen's later crimes that committed the fraud. The applications were fraudulent. The applications lied about the relationships and some of them had forged signatures.
I don't understand how you can call the fake dead person just a case of insurable interest. The person didn't exist which means that the person can't be insured and the person can't die. It would be the same if it was a fake husband.
Max, as I keep saying get with the real world. You may have every insurance law book memorized. However, it doesn't change the fact that if an insurance company approves a case with accurate information, they can't come back and not pay a claim with this same information.
The cases that you are using have the true information being different than what is on the application.
"Insurable interest is up to the insurance company,"
are your words. If someone applies with honest information and the application is approved, the insurance company has decided that insurable interest exists.
Again, I'm not talking about your examples with dishonest information because that isn't what I'm talking about and that's not what the question asked.
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:55 am Post Subject: LIFE INSURANCE
My significant other and I have been together over 24 years. We are not married and do not live together and don't know if we will. I would like to have an insurance policy on him. I do not know the legality of this since we do not cohabitate. Guidance, please...
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 07:58 am Post Subject:
You do not have any obvious INSURABLE INTEREST, even though you've been dating for 24 years. The best way to accomplish this is for your "significant other" to obtain the life insurance on his own and either (1) make you an irrevocable beneficiary, or (2) wait for more than two years after the policy is issued to have him assign the policy ownership to you.
Because you have no insurable interest, it might appear to the insurance company and/or state insurance regulators to be a "stranger-originated life insurance" (STOLI) transaction, which is now prohibited in most states, if you are assigned ownership shortly after the policy passes its second anniversary. Most companies are asking a question in the application (or a supplemental document) if the owner intends to transfer ownership to a third party within two years of the policy effective date.
Obviously, the long-standing relationship argues against that premise, but it also hinges on whose idea it is to obtain the insurance in the first place. The transfer of ownership of a STOLI policy also requires specific "consideration" to be exchanged for the right to own the contract, and it generally has income tax implications for both parties.
The irrevocable beneficiary path is probably the best one to take.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:14 pm Post Subject:
thanks so much for asking this question. im kinda in same boat but we have been together for 7 years. i am an ex truck driver and have no idea what i would do if something happen to him. im 51 and use to flatbed..it took a tole on me so i really depend on him. he knows this too so im not doing anything behind his back..lol. thanks for the answers
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 05:44 am Post Subject: life insurance
life insurance is very important to save our life and also our special friend(life partner). you can save the life of your boy friend, but it might not be possible that he is trustworthy for you. he can change his decision.
so think about it and insurance companies can also arise these type of questions.
thankyou,
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 06:33 am Post Subject:
You can not be the beneficiary at the time of application, but after the policy is issued, you can change the beneficiary to you and so the answer initially is no but then the answer becomes yes.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 04:49 am Post Subject:
You can not be the beneficiary at the time of application, but after the policy is issued, you can change the beneficiary to you and so the answer initially is no but then the answer becomes yes.
How about more of an explanation?
How will the beneficiary be changed to her if she isn't the owner? If she is the owner, there won't be an issue with her being the beneficiary.
Add your comment