by Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 08:51 pm
a husband was named as beneficiary on his wife's life insurance policy at issue. He died and the beneficiary change was not completed before the wife herself died. Who is to receive payment
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 01:47 am Post Subject:
the contingent or secondary beneficary..if none the estate
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 01:56 am Post Subject: insurance
It takes just a few minutes to 'add' a Beneficiary to a Life Insurance policy. i'm alittle curious here..why WASN'T the process complete yet? was there some kind of problem, etc?
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 07:31 am Post Subject:
If there is no designated beneficiary in the life policy then the benefit would be dictributed according to the statutory standard sequence defined in the particular state.
I just want to know whether the deceased had a will or not. If there is a will it might have described in details the distribution of the death benefit as well.
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 06:51 pm Post Subject:
It is interesting and important also.
Just curious, Who is the secondary beneficiary? Is it other than children?
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 04:43 am Post Subject:
Lori is right Guest, if there is no primary beneficiary in the policy then the contingent/secondary beneficiaries are next in the line to receive the death benefits.
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 06:12 am Post Subject:
First of all...what does this mean??
a husband was named as beneficiary on his wife's life insurance policy at issue. He died and the beneficiary change was not completed before the wife herself died. Who is to receive payment
Hubby was the beneficiary, he dies as the primary beneficiary, the wife doesn't change the benny from her now deceased husband, and then the wife died. So the OP is asking "who's the beneficiary?" I think I have it, and you guys are right.
The order of succession is the primary beneficiary, then the contingent, then the tertiary, then the estate of the insured, in this case the wife's estate.
Now...what the heck does THIS mean:
The one next in like metaforically speaking.
the secondary benificary gets it ii believe.
"Metaforically" (??) speaking? "Like metaforically speaking?" What???
Where's the metaPHOR here? I don't get it. Could this poster explain what they meant? I don't see any metaphors here. Thanks, I think.
InsTeacher 8)
I agree and therefore deleted it (before I read your post-sorry--lori)..
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:14 pm Post Subject: insurance
Sometimes people think ( with 'GOOD' cause) that nothing will happen to them " for a long time." And when unexpected situations DO come up, and the paperwork ( Life Insurance, Wills, etc) are not clear or are not complete, then we start to worry. We ALL need to take 'time out' and make sure all of our 'ducks are in a row' so we don't put burdens on family members, etc.
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:30 pm Post Subject:
good point SD, and AT THE VERY LEAST when you beneficiary dies, for pete's sake name a new one! :shock:
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 04:13 pm Post Subject: insurance
I've ALWAYS said this and will continue to say this:.......make sure the Beneficiary is someone you TRUST. If you are married, it doesn't automatically mean your spouse has to be on your Life Insurance as Beneficiary.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 12:23 am Post Subject:
The beneficiary should not be someone you trust. The beneficiary should be someone that you want to have the money. If the person that you want to have the money is too young or can't handle money, the money should go into a trust for their benefit and the trustee should be someone trustworthy.
There's a huge difference.
Add your comment