I am 67 and have become disabled, I do have a disability insurance. Can I claim benefits even after the fact that I’ve reached retirement age?
Total Comments: 30
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:05 am Post Subject:
Holy cow, Max. I didn't realize that you knew so little about this stuff that I had to quantify the statement by saying that is guaranteed non-cancellable and guaranteed renewable to age 65.
Nothing that I posted has anything to do with the original post. I'm simply talking about how good disability policies work.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:20 am Post Subject:
And just in case you did not read the definition of PUBLISHED UNDERWRITING LIMITS (which parallels my business above about "relationship of earning to insurance, that you insisted IS NOT in such a contract), on p.9 it reads:
Quote:
PUBLISHED UNDERWRITING LIMITS -- The maximum amounts available based on the Insured's Age, Occupation, Income, Unearned Income, and other disability income benefits in force or applied for.
This also tells us that if the insured has other disability benefits available, this policy's limit will be reduced by that amount (so that the total of all benefits payable does not exceed Mass Mutual's underwriting limits for the insured).
Max, you are very incorrect. Underwriting limits is about how much a company will issue. It is not the same as relation of earnings to insurance. Underwriting limits are simply about how much coverage can be written. Once that amount is in force the company can’t lower it.
Use life insurance as a comparison. Judy makes $50,000. ABC insurance company will insure her for 20x income =$1,000,000. The following year, she takes a massive pay cut and only makes $20,000. The insurance company can’t lower her death benefit. They won’t typically insure someone making $20,000 for $1,000,000, but they are stuck with her. If she dies, her beneficiaries get $1,000,000.
With DI, with $50,000, she would qualify for a benefit of roughly $2,500/month. Assume that she is an accountant. The next year, she gets fed up with accounting and becomes a ditch digger making $20,000. The insurance company would not insure a $20,000 income for $2,500/month nor would they insure a ditch digger at all. However, because the contract is guaranteed renewable and non-cancellable (until age 65), the insurance company is stuck with her. Additionally, since there is no relationship of earnings to insurance in a good contract, if she suffers a total disability that won’t allow her to dig ditches so she watches Oprah all day, she will collect $2,500/month.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:28 am Post Subject:
That's patently incorrect, as I already stated. If it wasn't important to have an income, on p.8 of the contract there would be no need for the definition of INCOME:
If you understood the contract, you would realize that this is of huge importance. Residual disability is all about loss of income.
Ex. James has a benefit of $7,000/month. His income was $70,000.* Because of his disability, James can only work part time and make $40,000. Because he lost 4/7ths of his income, he would collect 4/7ths of the claim or $4,000/month.
*Notice that there doesn't need to be any relation between his income and benefit except at time of application.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:36 am Post Subject:
Not working at the time of a disability? Then one has no occupation in which to earn an income. That's the way I read the contract. Do you read it differently?
In general, you are correct. For instance, one who isn't working can't collect a residual/partial * benefit because it is all based upon loss of earnings. However, it is possible to collect on a total disability.
Ex. Jim is a CPA. He gets laid off of his job. He is still looking for working. If he becomes disabled and can't do accounting work, he is totally disabled and will collect.
Ex. Jim quits being a CPA to become a full time dad. He can't collect a benefit because the defintion of disability is based upon one's occupation at claim time. "Dad" is not an occupation so he can't collect.
*residual/benefit...different states define these terms differently. I'm talking about a benefit that can last for as long as the benefit period of the contract and is based upon a loss of income.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:43 am Post Subject:
Post the relevant policy provisions for "CHANGE OF OCCUPATION" and "RELATIONSHIP OF EARNINGS TO INSURANCE" from any of the policies you cite and we'll see. If I'm wrong, I'll say so.
Max, now that you have a specimen contract in front of you, go ahead and quote what it says about "CHANGE OF OCCUPATION" and "RELATIONSHIP OF EARNING TO iNSURANCE".
What? You can't find those clauses in the policy. How could that be? Maybe it's possible that I know this stuff. I'm not going to do any more of your homework for you, but if you look at any decent contract, you'll see that it isn't in any of them.
You see, you may "live and breathe insurance" while I just "live and breathe my family". Yet, I do manage to sell about 1 one of these contracts a month and I have been involved in more than my share of claims. I know what the contracts say. I know how they work in the real world.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 01:52 pm Post Subject:
Max, it's been a week. By now, you should be able to admit that you are wrong.
(my post above should say "1 of these contracts a week"(
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 08:12 pm Post Subject:
But in all fairness to the discussion, I'll continue my analysis, and have more to post in another day or two.
It's a shame, Max. Everytime that you are shown to be wrong, you just disappear.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 09:42 am Post Subject:
So, max is posting again, but refusing to post when he is being shown to be wrong.
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 06:58 pm Post Subject:
Maybe Max is still studying the issue.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 03:43 am Post Subject:
Max isn't still studying the issue. He doesn't engage in conversations once he learns he is wrong. This is unfortunately, par for the course for him.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:05 am Post Subject:
Holy cow, Max. I didn't realize that you knew so little about this stuff that I had to quantify the statement by saying that is guaranteed non-cancellable and guaranteed renewable to age 65.
Nothing that I posted has anything to do with the original post. I'm simply talking about how good disability policies work.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:20 am Post Subject:
And just in case you did not read the definition of PUBLISHED UNDERWRITING LIMITS (which parallels my business above about "relationship of earning to insurance, that you insisted IS NOT in such a contract), on p.9 it reads:
Quote:
PUBLISHED UNDERWRITING LIMITS -- The maximum amounts available based on the Insured's Age, Occupation, Income, Unearned Income, and other disability income benefits in force or applied for.
This also tells us that if the insured has other disability benefits available, this policy's limit will be reduced by that amount (so that the total of all benefits payable does not exceed Mass Mutual's underwriting limits for the insured).
Max, you are very incorrect. Underwriting limits is about how much a company will issue. It is not the same as relation of earnings to insurance. Underwriting limits are simply about how much coverage can be written. Once that amount is in force the company can’t lower it.
Use life insurance as a comparison. Judy makes $50,000. ABC insurance company will insure her for 20x income =$1,000,000. The following year, she takes a massive pay cut and only makes $20,000. The insurance company can’t lower her death benefit. They won’t typically insure someone making $20,000 for $1,000,000, but they are stuck with her. If she dies, her beneficiaries get $1,000,000.
With DI, with $50,000, she would qualify for a benefit of roughly $2,500/month. Assume that she is an accountant. The next year, she gets fed up with accounting and becomes a ditch digger making $20,000. The insurance company would not insure a $20,000 income for $2,500/month nor would they insure a ditch digger at all. However, because the contract is guaranteed renewable and non-cancellable (until age 65), the insurance company is stuck with her. Additionally, since there is no relationship of earnings to insurance in a good contract, if she suffers a total disability that won’t allow her to dig ditches so she watches Oprah all day, she will collect $2,500/month.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:28 am Post Subject:
That's patently incorrect, as I already stated. If it wasn't important to have an income, on p.8 of the contract there would be no need for the definition of INCOME:
If you understood the contract, you would realize that this is of huge importance. Residual disability is all about loss of income.
Ex. James has a benefit of $7,000/month. His income was $70,000.* Because of his disability, James can only work part time and make $40,000. Because he lost 4/7ths of his income, he would collect 4/7ths of the claim or $4,000/month.
*Notice that there doesn't need to be any relation between his income and benefit except at time of application.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:36 am Post Subject:
Not working at the time of a disability? Then one has no occupation in which to earn an income. That's the way I read the contract. Do you read it differently?
In general, you are correct. For instance, one who isn't working can't collect a residual/partial * benefit because it is all based upon loss of earnings. However, it is possible to collect on a total disability.
Ex. Jim is a CPA. He gets laid off of his job. He is still looking for working. If he becomes disabled and can't do accounting work, he is totally disabled and will collect.
Ex. Jim quits being a CPA to become a full time dad. He can't collect a benefit because the defintion of disability is based upon one's occupation at claim time. "Dad" is not an occupation so he can't collect.
*residual/benefit...different states define these terms differently. I'm talking about a benefit that can last for as long as the benefit period of the contract and is based upon a loss of income.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:43 am Post Subject:
Post the relevant policy provisions for "CHANGE OF OCCUPATION" and "RELATIONSHIP OF EARNINGS TO INSURANCE" from any of the policies you cite and we'll see. If I'm wrong, I'll say so.
Max, now that you have a specimen contract in front of you, go ahead and quote what it says about "CHANGE OF OCCUPATION" and "RELATIONSHIP OF EARNING TO iNSURANCE".
What? You can't find those clauses in the policy. How could that be? Maybe it's possible that I know this stuff. I'm not going to do any more of your homework for you, but if you look at any decent contract, you'll see that it isn't in any of them.
You see, you may "live and breathe insurance" while I just "live and breathe my family". Yet, I do manage to sell about 1 one of these contracts a month and I have been involved in more than my share of claims. I know what the contracts say. I know how they work in the real world.
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 01:52 pm Post Subject:
Max, it's been a week. By now, you should be able to admit that you are wrong.
(my post above should say "1 of these contracts a week"(
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 08:12 pm Post Subject:
But in all fairness to the discussion, I'll continue my analysis, and have more to post in another day or two.
It's a shame, Max. Everytime that you are shown to be wrong, you just disappear.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 09:42 am Post Subject:
So, max is posting again, but refusing to post when he is being shown to be wrong.
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 06:58 pm Post Subject:
Maybe Max is still studying the issue.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 03:43 am Post Subject:
Max isn't still studying the issue. He doesn't engage in conversations once he learns he is wrong. This is unfortunately, par for the course for him.
Add your comment