This sounds like b.s. to me. There’s no kids involved. Just a ex-wife that will get half of everything the guy has. But, how on earth could she force him to get and pay for an insurance policy? 
Is this even legally possible in a divorce decree?
For this thread, can we please ignore the name of the person involved? It’s doesn’t really matter. Although I guess the wife is hoping someone blows his head off so she can collect on the insurance. 
That’s a pretty cold blooded ex-wife.
If she was awarded alimony, a life insurance policy might be ordered to guarantee payments in the event of his death.
Most divorces settle. When filing what is anticipated to be a contested divorce, it is not at all unusual to ask for a lot of things a party may not actually expect to get. It’s done to provide negotiating room.
That would be my guess.
One of the things I’m involved in is life insurance (though it’s a far distant sidelight I know a lot of fellow travelers involved in it) and there are a LOT of hoops to jump through before a policy is issued including several signatures that assume no coercion.
On the other hand, I long ago gave up trying to predict what a court would order. Though I’d be doubtful a court could compel life insurance to maintain spousal support.
You can ask for anything.
If you can ask for alimony, it stands to reason that you can ask for life insurance.
Anyway, I would speculate that it’s a boilerplate divorce petition which asks for everything under the sun.
This is a common tactic used by lawyers – as the case progresses, if you learn facts which make you decide to seek remedy X, you don’t want the other side to be able to claim that it is prejudiced because you did not mention remedy X in the initiating papers.
As an aside, I wonder if Zimmerman is too fat to qualify for life insurance.
No, he’s not. Honestly, I think I could write a policy on anyone under, say, 65. Obesity is on the list, but far FAR behind smoking and drinking.
The worst I had was when, in a pre-signing interview, a client revealed that he was a former smack addict and had done time in a psych ward after having tried to kill himself by intentionally ODing.
The end of that story? I still found a life insurance product for him. The company had a policy that only had a 2 year lookback, so it was outside of the inspection.
I owe my ex $5,000 a month for five years. I have to carry enough insurance to confer it in case I die. On the other hand, no one has ever asked me to prove that I did it.
I was shocked at the demand for a life time insurnce policy.
This is a childless young woman who was only married six or seven years. She’s very close to finishing nursing school (delayed by the trial). There’s no reason she won’t be self supporting in a few years.
I can’t imagine her getting a big insurance pay out thirty or forty years from now when an ex she barely remembers dies.
Like everyone said, the demand isn’t shocking, lawyers will ask for everything in a divorce case. It would be somewhat surprising if she gets alimony for more than a year.
If she gets alimony, then the insurance policy will be limited for the duration of the alimony. One year of alimony for $1,000 per month = $12,000 policy that you may cancel after one year.
That seems quite reasonable. A years alimony and a years life insurance to cover it.
Seems to me that there might be a hazard that the person ordered to buy life insurance on themself could “arrange” things to get denied. Maybe he could feign a psychiatric issue to get committed to a mental ward (within the lookback period) and then, “oops, sorry, I know they asked me to get insurance but nobody will give it to me (cries) due to my medical history, what am I supposed to do, start my own insurance company?” If the insurance requires a physical exam, he could intentionally put himself into a less than appealing posture - show up disheveled, with poor body odor, in a state of sleep deprivation, and under the influence of legal substances. He could throw his blood pressure or blood sugar way off normal that way. Or, he could claim to the insurance company that, “I’m not applying because I really want insurance, I’m being forced. According to the policy book, coercion counts as an automatic denial. Can we, uhh, make sure this gets denied? I’ll buy you a beer.”
Would a divorce court judge have jurisdiction to order an insurance company to issue a policy to a person the insurance company deemed to be too much of a risk? After all, insurance companies are private firms who get to set their own rules and determine how much of a risk they are comfortable with.
So how much drinking is an issue for life insurance?
There is something sadly humorous in the idea that you got to keep paying the ex even after you’re dead.
That’s interesting. I purchased life insurance recently and they seemed very fixated on height and weight. So I assumed that too fat = no life insurance.
Yes, but if you don’t get a policy, it’s possible that your ex could sue your estate for the money, should you bite the big one before the five years is up.
No, but the Court would have jurisdiction over the person ordered to obtain insurance, and could hold them in contempt, particularly if the other side could prove he made only a half assed attempt to obtain the required coverage.
Also, a well drafted order that contains a provision requiring insurance coverage will also include a provision requiring the person ordered to obtain insurance to provide proof or coverage to the beneficiary after each renewal.
I’m sure that it does affect your rates.
She is divorcing a dude who possibly lives in daily danger of being killed. She wants to make sure she can be provided for before she is self supporting.
Yes, I have a policy. Just thought it was strange that they went to all the effort to require one but never asked for verification. For all they know, my estate could be empty at the time of my demise.
Honestly, I don’t know what the threshold is, but they do ask about ongoing drinking…do you, how many per week, how many per day and so on. Answering that with more and greater consumption results in a higher premium.
But nothing, I mean nothing, raises rates more than smoking. It’s a whole other tier of rates and companies are gun shy about offering it at all.