by Insurance Expert » Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:54 am
There have been quite a few posts with this subject.
Many people have been saying that if there is not a named beneficiary, the proceeds get paid to the estate.
I chimed in and said that a policy could have a default beneficiary. I also said that I thought that most policies don't have a default beneficiary.
Anyway, I sold two policies today from two different companies and both of them on the application said what would happen to the money if no beneficiary was alive. In neither case would the money go directly to the estate.
Many people have been saying that if there is not a named beneficiary, the proceeds get paid to the estate.
I chimed in and said that a policy could have a default beneficiary. I also said that I thought that most policies don't have a default beneficiary.
Anyway, I sold two policies today from two different companies and both of them on the application said what would happen to the money if no beneficiary was alive. In neither case would the money go directly to the estate.
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:57 am Post Subject:
Gary, I'm trying to figure out if you just aren't very smart or if you have a psychological problem.
I'm guessing it's the latter. Some people psychologically have so much of their whole being tied up with being right that they can't process any information that is contrary to their opinion.
Your use of the Florida state law is a prime example of this. There is no mention of preference beneficiaries. It simply talks about creditor protection based upon the payee, yet somehow, this is your proof.
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:06 pm Post Subject:
Now what’s written above is exactly contradictory to the first statement, isn’t it?
No because it is saying IF your policy has (for lack of a better word) a default beneficary claus then that is where the money goes NOT your estate, (unless there are not the other survivors)...State LAW controls the disposition of life insurance funds.
And state law says that if the contract for insurance has a default beneficiary claus then that is where the money goes..period..the contract comes first..I’ve asked all of you many times now to PROVIDE THE STATE LAW that supports your opinion.
And didn't I a page or two back?A beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy or an annuity contract is a superior designation that CANNOT be defeated by Will or Trust or any other proceeding.
OR state law, I agree, if that contract has NO named beneficiary and the contract has a 'preference' or 'default' beneficiary, then that is where the money goes...are we in agreement about that now? Since that's all we've been saying the whole time..are you NOW agreeing that is the case? oh guess not.. :roll:If the beneficiary designation is left blank the proceeds are paid to “The ESTATE” of the dead Insured/Owner.
So are you STILL maintaining that if a default beneficiary claus is present in the contact that those proceeds are NOT paid to the party's in that contract, but RATHER go directly to the state is that what you are saying? In essencse that the wording of the contract is null and void, because Gary said so...is that right? I want you to spell that out before I post a 'linky' for you that says otherwise...so again, are you maintaining that if no beneficiary is named, AND the life insurance policy/contract has a preference/default beneficiary claus that the carrier does NOT pay to those default beneficiarys (in order) BUT rather, it disregards that part of the insurance contract and pays it to the estate instead? Is that what you are saying? (we are talking about life insurance...group, private, gov't employee, these are all life insurance contracts Gary)
PLEASE provide any state’s STATE LAW to the contrary that says if the life insurance beneficiary is left blank the INSURANCE COMPANY, by way of THEIR OWN preference clause decides who get the money.
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 01:51 pm Post Subject:
To make it easy, I will summarize Gary's viewpoint:
Insurance is governed by the state.
Insurance is a contract.
The state of Florida must approve any policies sold in their state.
An insurance contract in the state of Florida can't have a preference beneficiary.
At death, if there isn't a named beneficiary, the money will go to the estate of the owner.
What Gary can't explain is why if preference beneficiaries are illegal in the state of Florida, why policies that have been approved by the state of Florida almost always have preference beneficiaries. Is he trying to say that the state of Florida's insurance department is party to approving contracts that are illegal in the state?
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 09:28 am Post Subject:
Lori, I'll ask you again....
Let's see if I can get a straightforward answer from Lori on a simple straightforward question.
Lori, DO YOU KNOW the difference from group life/health administered under the Federal Law ERISA from group life/health insurance regulated under State Law from individual life/health regulated under State Law?
Please answer Yes or No.
I'll say it again and try to use stronger language. When the beneficiary designation is left blank on a life insurance policy or an annuity contract the proceeds are paid to "The Estate" of the owner of the policy.
E V E R Y T I M E.
Period.
End of story.
Please provide any state law to the contrary because I'd like to know which state has a distribution method for this situation outside of the Probate Court system.
PLEASE, I'm not asking for your opinion SHOW-ME the state law that supports your claims.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 01:50 pm Post Subject:
Gary, that's a good tact that you are taking. When you don't know the answer to a question, keep screaming the same thing over and over and ignore all responses.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 06:23 pm Post Subject:
Please provide any state law to the contrary because I'd like to know which state has a distribution method for this situation outside of the Probate Court system.
Just for fun, I'll keep doing this with you.
If a policy is paid to the estate, then, in every state, we can agree that it is a probatable asset.
However, what we are telling you is that as long as there is a beneficiary, either specifically named, or by contractual language (which has been approved by the state), and that beneficiary is not the insured or the insured's estate, the state doesn't need a distribution method. This is because the state has no part in distributing the asset since it's not an asset that goes through probate.
It's ashame that an estate planning expert like yourself can't comprehend basic concepts.
Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 09:49 am Post Subject:
Dear I.E. thank you for playing along.
Being an anonymouse poster with mouse being the operative word that gives you the freedom to post any absurdity you choose.
Now keep playing along because it shows your incompetence.
For the General Public who may read this thread if you leave the beneficary designation blank on your life insurance those proceeds WILL BE TIED UP IN THE PROBATE COURT SYSTEM.
The insurance company DOES NOT get to decide by corporate fiat who gets the money. The disposition in that situation is governed by state law.
And to date....I'm still waiting for anyone to SHOW-ME chapter and verse in any state's state law that says the insurance company gets to decide based on their own "preference clause."
Keep posting I.E. you're a useful idiot.
Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:11 pm Post Subject:
For the General Public who may read this thread if you leave the beneficary designation blank on your life insurance those proceeds WILL BE TIED UP IN THE PROBATE COURT SYSTEM.
DEFINE 'life insurance'
Keep posting I.E. you're a useful idiot.
THIS IS YOUR ABSOLUTE LAST WARNING ABOUT THIS GARY, . :x One more, and I'll request you be banned...5th grade name calling, should be (even) beneath you...now, KNOCK IT OFF!!! When you're wrong, calling people names does not make you right...you're losing any respect you might've had...I'm serious...stop it...Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 05:21 pm Post Subject:
The insurance company DOES NOT get to decide by corporate fiat who gets the money. The disposition in that situation is governed by state law.
And to date....I'm still waiting for anyone to SHOW-ME chapter and verse in any state's state law that says the insurance company gets to decide based on their own "preference clause."
Maybe you just don't understand Insurance Basics 101.
The states regulate the insurance companies. In order for a life insurance policy to be sold in the state of Florida, the policy must be approved in the state. If the state doesn't like some of the contractual language, the language must be changed. Therefore a policy can't be sold in the state of Florida with the policy's contractual language being approved.
An insurance policy is a contract between the owner of the policy and the insurance company. It lays out all of the terms and conditions. The application is part of the policy. It is a binding contract on both parties.
The terms of the contract have been approved by the State of Florida and agreed to by both the policy owner and the insurance company.
There are many pages of terms in the contract. One of the terms will sometimes explicitly say what happens if no named beneficiary is alive. If, for example, it says, “If no beneficiary is alive or none is named, the proceeds will be paid to the spouse, if living, and if deceased, the proceeds will be paid to the children and if they are deceased, it will be paid to the estate”, assuming there is a living spouse and no named beneficiary is alive, it will be paid to the spouse.
The insurance company is not doing this by fiat. They are doing it via a contract that was approved by the State of Florida and agreed to by the policy owner.
What proof do we have that this is legal in the State of Florida? Easy. The State of Florida approved the contract.
If Gary is serious about his statements, he must believe that since most of the contracts have preference beneficiaries, most Florida contracts are illegal. Of course, in order to believe this, he would also have to know of a law making the use of preference beneficiaries illegal even if Florida specifically approves their useage.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:48 am Post Subject:
Registered representatives, I.E. (stock brokers) ARE useful idiots.
These are the people who had to get an insurance license to be able to sell the infamous bloated pig with lip stick known as a Variable Annuity. They are controlled by their Bernard Madoff type broker dealers and they deal what their broker dealers push.
THEY ARE NOT INSURANCE AGENTS.
And they wouldn't know risk management if they had a mouth full of it.
This thread is an example of head up their assterisk thought process.
The most important information on a life insurance policy or an annuity contract is the BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS.
Lori…. I've been banned before and it's always because some moderator and or administrator doesn't know what they're talking about such as yourself on this thread.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Life insurance is the sole property of the Insured/Owner of the life insurance policy and if there are no named beneficiaries those proceeds become part of the Probate Estate.
And by the way….not that you’ll actually bother to read and educate yourself… but in Florida the surviving spouse is entitled to $60,000 plus ½ of the intestate estate if there are surviving lineal decendants.
Now tell me something Missy…..how does that square with your so-called “preference clause” you seem to think controls?
See THIS LINKY.
732.102 Spouse's share of intestate estate.--The intestate share of the surviving spouse is:
(1) If there is no surviving descendant of the decedent, the entire intestate estate.
(2) If there are surviving descendants of the decedent, all of whom are also lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, the first $60,000 of the intestate estate, plus one-half of the balance of the intestate estate. Property allocated to the surviving spouse to satisfy the $60,000 shall be valued at the fair market value on the date of distribution.
(3) If there are surviving descendants, one or more of whom are not lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, one-half of the intestate estate.
Now Missy and I.E. (stock broker) just EXACTLY what do you think will prevail in Court? The Florida Law that governs this situation or a contract provision that is contrary to state law?
I can hardly wait to read your non-answer answers.
Add your comment