{{{{{Stephi}}}}}}
You need to join us tonight. Badly. We’ll make voodoo dolls.
Elly
Uh…no pun intended! 
Ooooh the voodoo you do…
Well, actually, she might not. Since potential criminal activity has already been noted on this policy, the insurance company might have suspended the policy, pending an investigation. If something should happen to you before the policy is officially cancelled (God forbid), my guess is the company would reimburse your parent(s) all of the premiums they’ve paid on the policy thus far and tell them to go suck a rope if they ask for the benefits.
Gah. This is just getting worse and worse. I’m sorry that you have to go through this crap, Stephi.
Sauron, I have one last question on this hijack: in what sort of situation would an insurable interest not be found for a case of one family member buying a policy on another? I understand that you’re possibly not the person to ask about this sort of thing, given your years of removal, but I’m just curious.
Also, d’you think I have an insurable interest in the makers of Mayfield Turtle Tracks ice cream?
Generally speaking, you have an insurable interest in your immediate family members, unless there have been years of separation or estrangement. (For example, I seriously doubt an insurance company would allow Stephi’s parents to take out a policy on her now, since they haven’t spoken for years.) What constitutes an insurable interest could change from company to company, though. I doubt you could prove an insurable interest on, say, your aunt, unless there were other mitigating factors (partners in a family business, primary care provider, stuff like that). If I’m not mistaken, many insurance companies require that the insured party (assuming they’re of legal age) sign a form indicating they know they’re being insured. If that’s correct, Stephi won’t have to worry about her parents taking out a new policy on her – they won’t be able to do it without her knowledge and consent.
The makers of Mayfield Turtle Tracks ice cream aren’t insurable, because they will never ever die. I hate you for even implying such a thing could happen.
If you need me, I’ll be over here in the corner, curled up in a fetal position.
Yeah, but what’s clear from the linked thread is that the law currently finds insurable interests where common sense finds none.
And Stephi’s story shows us that even if insurance companies know relationships change, the law doesn’t require they do anything about it. Stephi can’t even find out how much her death might be worth to her estranged parents, fercryinoutloud. (That really sucks, Stephi. What a rotten situation. :()
I stand by what I said: no one should be allowed to hold a policy on another adult’s life, without that adult’s express written permission. What could possibly be wrong with such a restriction?
We simulposted. I’m pretty sure companies require the insured to sign a form indicated they know they’re being insured, assuming the insured is of legal age. A policy taken on a minor doesn’t require the minor’s signature, but there has to be an insurable interest (such as a parent-child relationship).
But, once the minor reaches legal age, there is no requirement of a signature, or at least some sort of notification?
I mean, I see that implementing such a requirement would be fairly difficult, but it seems that there should be some effort made. In this case, Stephi had no idea that there was any policy on her at all. And, since the police and insurance company found her without too much trouble, she wasn’t exactly taking great pains to hide herself. (I’m assuming all this, of course, Stephi. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.)
Stephi, I’m sorry for your pain. It would be really easy for me to visualize a Farside cartoon with a caption like “Stephi suddenly decided to cross the better nursing homes off her list”, but that doesn’t take into account your pain. I can’t imagine what it would feel like to experiance your pain, girl. You have my deepest sympathies…
There’s not a post-contractual requirement once a minor reaches legal age that I’m aware of. I suppose, once again, it would depend on the insurance company. I seriously doubt many of them have the resources to track this sort of thing.
Now, having said that, a good insurance agent should be updating his files at least once a year, and if nothing else offering a courtesy review to his clients. Issues like the one you’re talking about could be discussed at that time.
Nightmare thought just occured to me: Supposing the scam had worked, and the parents collected. On their way to Atlantic City to celebrate their windfall (right after depositing the check in the bank), they spin out on the New Jersey Turnpike. Both are killed instantly. Surprise! Turns out they had no wills, and Stephi is their sole surviving relative. She hears from Auntie of her parents’ deaths, and heads south to collect their estate.
What kind of legal position does this put her in?
Well, if the scam worked, I’d have to straighten out the “I’m not really dead, thanks” problem. I have a valid passport, or at least had one, until it was stolen about 3 weeks ago, so I have proof of my identy. But if I hadn’t applied for one, they might have gotten away with it.
I assume the money would technically be the proceeds of a crime, so I don’t think I’d get to keep it, even if I could prove who I was.
Wouldn’t they have that information (i.e., age) on the…umm…object of the policy (sorry, don’t know the technical term) as standard procedure? How hard would it be to have an insurance company’s filing system throw up a flag when a minor reaches legal age? Keep in mind that I have nearly no knowledge of the internal workings of the insurance business, so I really don’t know how difficult this kind of thing would be.
Another good point. However, there’s no requirement for these updates, right? Or is that an aspect of a particular company?
If it wasn’t for their meddling kid!
Oh, yes, they’d have the information. But if they haven’t already been keeping track of the ages of the insureds (and there probably isn’t a reason for them to do so), they would have to research policies that have been in effect for years – in some cases, decades – and retroactively notify those people. Most companies won’t have computer records of stuff that old – it would likely be on microfiche. Searching those policies would be a logistical nightmare – one no company is going to begin unless they’re required by law. And, as has been noted previously, the insured has absolutely no rights under an insurance policy – only the insurance company and the policy owner have a say-so in what happens.
No requirement at all, unless a particular company requires it. Part of my job, when I was trying to sell insurance, was calling owners of old policies (we’re talking policies issued 40 years ago) to offer a free insurance update. Most people refused, thinking that it was an excuse to try to sell them more insurance – a practice I’m sure many agents follow.
What always made me sad was calling on these little old ladies, in their 70s and 80s, who had “burial policies.” This was a practice of some insurance companies in the 1940s and 1950s – they’d sell life insurance and market it as a way for your survivors to meet your funeral expenses. Nothing wrong with that. However, these policies would pay out $500 in the event of the death of the insured. Now, in 1945, $500 would bury you in style. Today, you couldn’t get a casket for that. I would try to explain this to these ladies, but they kept insisting the nice agent who had sold them the policy back in 1945 promised them these were “burial policies” that would “pay for all the final arrangements.” I couldn’t make them understand that the policy would only pay $500, regardless of how much their funeral cost. Because, of course, I was just another scamming insurance salesman, looking to make a buck off the uninformed.
It was a frustrating existence, let me tell you.
No? I thought one of the prime factors in calculating premiums and such is age. Or is that not so much of an issue in the case of minors?
**
At most, eighteen to twenty-one years, right?
**
Gah. Microfiche? :shudder: Well, I can certainly see how that could be prohibitively expensive.
**
I can imagine.
All right, I think I’ve hijacked Stephi’s thread enough. Thanks, Sauron.
Yes, age plays a part. However, in the case of cash-value insurance, age is only important when the policy is issued. As far as a cash-value policy is concerned, the insured is always the same age. Term life insurance generally goes up each year, although now many companies offer “level-term” insurance, which locks in a particular payment for X number of years without building any sort of cash value.
Nope. If a company was required to get a sign-off from any minor who was insured on a policy once the minor was of legal age, the company would have to research every policy they ever issued to determine a) if the insured was a minor when the policy was issued and b) if said minor was now of legal age, in which case they’d have to send a letter or signature form or something.
I did not know that.
**
Ah. I see what you’re saying now. Thanks for clarifying.
At the risk of continuing this hijack even further –
Cash-value insurance (usually called “whole-life” insurance) is always more expensive than term for the same person. The main reason? Term insurance isn’t designed for the insurance company to pay death benefits.
Term insurance makes perfect sense for young people (especially newlyweds or young marrieds) – it’s cheap, and it can protect your investments and lifestyle should one of the partners die. (Term insurance is sometimes called “catastrophic insurance” for this reason. The death benefit is normally only paid if a young person dies accidentally.) However, because young people are statistically far less likely to die than older people, the insurance doesn’t cost much, because the insurance company knows it probably won’t have to pay any death benefits. Plus, the company keeps raising the price of the insurance every year, because as the insured ages, his or her likelihood of dying increases as well. Eventually, though, term insurance gets to be too expensive for almost anybody to afford – on the order of several hundred dollars a month when the insured is in their 70s or 80s. The vast majority of people let their policies lapse long before then. So the insurance company has gotten a wad of money in premiums over the years that it never had to pay back.
Whole-life insurance, however, is designed to be kept for your entire lifetime. (Hence the name.) Since the insurance company knows it will have to pay on this policy, assuming the owner pays the premiums on time, it raises the price at the outset. Whereas a 25-year-old male in decent health could probably get $150,000 in term insurance for about ten bucks a month, a $150,000 whole-life policy would probably cost him around $80/month.
That’s the major reason I got my kids a whole-life policy when they were very young (the oldest was three). They’ll never be able to get a permanent life insurance policy on themselves as cheaply as I did when they were infants.
Originally posted by Stephi
“they might have gotten away with it.”
Originally posted by Carrot
“If it wasn’t for their meddling kid!”
Stephi, while I know this is So wrong…would you ever consider, purely as therapy & to relieve stress, opening your window and yelling out:
“Screwbie-Doobie-Do!”?
<I apologise in advance for that post. Its been a sh-…umm bad week for me too. Please forgive the bad joke…>