being ignored by company

by Guest » Thu May 14, 2009 12:15 am
Guest

I have a severe issue with a major life insurance company,
and yet there seems to be no recourse, no hope, and no interest on
the part of the company's representatives to resolve this issue.
In an honest world I feel as thought this would have been resolved
long ago, and I am hesitant to act on any course of action which could
put me in financial or physical harm's way.

There is a life insurance policy which was opened for me when I was born, by the then employer of my father, through an personal accountant whose
identity I do not know. I only became aware of this when I turned 21,
and began receiving bills in the employer's name. I do not know how the
insurance company learned how to mail me.

This caused me immense confusion and apprehension at the time, not being aware of any aspect of the situation personally, nor being able to find out the identity of the addressee of these bills. It literally took me years to find out that he was the prior employer of my father's, and the whole time I was led to wonder who the beneficiary might be, and in my more paranoid moments, if there could be someone out there waiting for the amount of the account to be worth coming after me.

At this point I have had many calls with the employer, and personally met him one time. He has stated that he set up life insurance policies for more than one employee's child as a gift, but that he has no knowledge of these accounts since a CPA set them all up for him. They were idle gestures, and I honestly believed him when he said that he does not believe he owns any accounts of this kind personally.

I know that he does. I receive the mail, and I see his name, my name, and the policy number. This insurance company sends me their privacy policies, which is actually somewhat amusing since they won't talk to me on the phone. One representative even went so far as to sympathize with me, expressing that I really didn't have any options. I feel that the prior employer feels me to be a severe bother, and after meeting with me and rejecting the billing papers I had with me might actually view me as a con man or something of that nature. Our once sporadic conversations have ceased.

I want to know who the beneficiary is, what the policy is worth, and I want it to be owned by me, or at the very least by one of my siblings. Someone I know.

What options do I have? The policy owner is tired of me and trusts me less than I trust him, hardly remembers my father at all, and the company refuses to talk to me at all. The cpa is a complete unknown. Soon I will likely be starting a family and I need to find some resolution on this.

What can I do?

Total Comments: 14

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 06:23 am Post Subject:

I think of someone losing financially as a result of the insured's death.



Ahhhh, Lori, you are a true P&C'er, ain't ya! P&C is still near and dear to my shriveled, cynical heart.

Most people think of insurable interest in terms of financial loss. In P&C, we "indemnify" the insured. Of course you know what that means, you do it all the time. Just about all property/casualty policies are contracts of indemnification. Restore the insured to the same approximate financial value as he was before the loss occurred. This interest must exist at the time of the loss, and the concept itself precludes the notion of profit. No such thing as a speculative risk in P&C; you can't profit. At best you can be made close to "whole."

Now think of life insurance. How can you "indemnify" a person's life. It's pretty hard to put the insured back into the same condition he was in before he died, huh? (groan) :( :lol: So, life insurance contracts are "valued" contracts- place a value on a person's life based on certain measures and practices that are usually screwed up by the average producer.

While you can estimate the value of a person's life, it's impossible to be exact. It's always an approximation based on certain assumptions. Even with closely scrutinized business buy-sell and key-person stuff, it's hard to be "perfect." If you're good, you can get reeeeeeal close, though.

Now to the point. In life insurance, the insurable interest is most commonly found through a familial connection as we've already discussed. There are absolutely ways to establish a financial insurable interest, but the OPs incident did not meet any of the criteria necessary to establish that financial interest. The financial insurable interest must be "legal and substantial" as in the case of business owners, partnerships, closed corporations with their officers, creditors/borrowers and that's about it.

Where in the OPs post did we see any of the above insurable interest relationships? This is why I questioned the whole thing. I would still like to know if this was (for sure) a term policy and whether it's still in force.

Lori made a good point that I didn't even think of when she mentioned that when the OP turned 21 he started receiving the bills. This would absolutely indicate a change in ownership, and I think she nailed it.

So...OP...did you pay the bill? If our connect the dots theory is accurate, the policy has expired if you didn't pay the premium if it was in fact a term policy. Just thought of something- did you receive any lapse or cancellation notices? Any further correspondence from the insurer?

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 08:41 am Post Subject:

Just curious James, do you have life insurance now? Why do you want to acquire the policy now? I hope you aren't uninsurable. You can still find a good deal with another insurer, I suppose.

Thanks,
Rupert

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:08 pm Post Subject:

Ahhhh, Lori, you are a true P&C'er, ain't ya!

:lol: guilty.. :wink:

Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 01:48 pm Post Subject:

actually no one loses (finacially speaking ONLY) if a child dies..



That's not always true. I'll use myself as an example. If something happened to one of my children, like all parents, I would be devastated. The difference is that since my business is straight commission, my income would take a serious hit since I wouldn't have the ability to work as I had.

Here's another similar example. I have a lot of life insurance on my non-working spouse. We don't need just enough insurance to hire a nanny. We need enough life insurance to replace a large part of my income. Why? She's at home because we felt that it was important that one of us stays home. If she dies, I need to become a stay at home dad. Thereafter, I would only work while my kids are in school.

My point is that lost income needs to be replaced, but it's not necessarily the income of the insured that is the income that is getting replaced.

Add your comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.