by MaxHerr » Tue Dec 08, 2009 02:50 am
There's a little disagreement over the subject of who must sign a life insurance application and related forms necessary to complete an application for insurance (such as HIPAA consents, HIV testing, etc.).
An otherwise anonymous poster on another thread would like to insist that he can obtain $1,000,000 of life insurance on a proposed insured without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured.
My contention is that whether it appears explicitly in the insurance code of a particular state or not, in the law of contracts requires the parties to the contract to sign the contract in order for it to be legally in force. Since the insured is a party to the contract, whether he likes it or not, he must answer the various questions in the application (or supply the requested personal information) and attest to their accuracy being "true and complete to the best of my knowledge" (a representation). A third-party owner signs the application to acknowledge his insurable interest, which is a requirement of most if not all Insurance Codes.
Most insurance codes, if not explicitly referring to the insured, infer equivalency between the term "applicant" and "insured". For example, the California Insurance Code (799.03) requires that [for life and disability income insurance] "(a) An insurer that requests an applicant to take an HIV-related test shall obtain the applicant's written informed consent for the test. Written informed consent shall include a description of the test to be performed, including its purpose, potential uses, and limitations, the meaning of its results, procedures for notifying the applicant of the results, and the right to confidential treatment of the results. Prior to the applicant's execution of the consent, the insurer shall:
(1) Provide the applicant printed material describing HIV, its
causes and symptoms, the manner in which it is spread, the test or
tests used to detect HIV or the HIV antibody, and what a person can
do whose test results are positive or negative.
(2) Provide the applicant a list of counseling resources
available, where the applicant can obtain assistance in understanding
the meaning of the test and its results. The list may be provided
from publicly available information.
It is clear from the context, that the Code is referring to the insured, not a third-party applicant/owner whose insurability is not in question. We know that insurers have, for the most part, incorporated such consents within the application, or in additional forms that are made a part of the application. No signed consent, no insurance. Unless the insurance amount is small, say $50,000 or less, the majority of insurers utilize saliva, blood, or urine testing for HIV/AIDS.
Various state and/or federal laws also require informed consent of the insured under a COLI/BOLI policy applied for by their employer, particularly when the beneficiary will be the employer and not a person of the insured's choice, such as when the policy is being used to informally fund a nonqualified employee benefit plan.
Please share your thoughts.
An otherwise anonymous poster on another thread would like to insist that he can obtain $1,000,000 of life insurance on a proposed insured without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured.
My contention is that whether it appears explicitly in the insurance code of a particular state or not, in the law of contracts requires the parties to the contract to sign the contract in order for it to be legally in force. Since the insured is a party to the contract, whether he likes it or not, he must answer the various questions in the application (or supply the requested personal information) and attest to their accuracy being "true and complete to the best of my knowledge" (a representation). A third-party owner signs the application to acknowledge his insurable interest, which is a requirement of most if not all Insurance Codes.
Most insurance codes, if not explicitly referring to the insured, infer equivalency between the term "applicant" and "insured". For example, the California Insurance Code (799.03) requires that [for life and disability income insurance] "(a) An insurer that requests an applicant to take an HIV-related test shall obtain the applicant's written informed consent for the test. Written informed consent shall include a description of the test to be performed, including its purpose, potential uses, and limitations, the meaning of its results, procedures for notifying the applicant of the results, and the right to confidential treatment of the results. Prior to the applicant's execution of the consent, the insurer shall:
(1) Provide the applicant printed material describing HIV, its
causes and symptoms, the manner in which it is spread, the test or
tests used to detect HIV or the HIV antibody, and what a person can
do whose test results are positive or negative.
(2) Provide the applicant a list of counseling resources
available, where the applicant can obtain assistance in understanding
the meaning of the test and its results. The list may be provided
from publicly available information.
It is clear from the context, that the Code is referring to the insured, not a third-party applicant/owner whose insurability is not in question. We know that insurers have, for the most part, incorporated such consents within the application, or in additional forms that are made a part of the application. No signed consent, no insurance. Unless the insurance amount is small, say $50,000 or less, the majority of insurers utilize saliva, blood, or urine testing for HIV/AIDS.
Various state and/or federal laws also require informed consent of the insured under a COLI/BOLI policy applied for by their employer, particularly when the beneficiary will be the employer and not a person of the insured's choice, such as when the policy is being used to informally fund a nonqualified employee benefit plan.
Please share your thoughts.
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:02 pm Post Subject:
However, the rider will also offer them anywhere from 100% to 500% of the rider's face amount as a Guaranteed Issue individual policy.
Max, you are becoming pretty accomplished with giving incorrect answers. One can get much more than that. The kiddie policy that I usually sell will allow a child to buy up to 16x the original face amount with no medical questions. This is capped at $1,000,000.
Be careful of what you post. People will believe you.
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 02:21 pm Post Subject: life insurance
MAX.....I catcha!! Thanks. And 'for the record'. MAX..yes..I DO beleive you because you are giving alot of the same advice that the Rep was giving me over the phone!!
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 02:23 pm Post Subject:
100% to 500% wasn't intended as an absolute limit. There are a couple of companies that I am aware of -- no need to mention them here -- that limit a child's conversion policy to the same face amount (1x) as the original rider in order to get the parents to buy a large policy on their infant (what infant or 6 year old truly needs a $100,000, $500,000, or $1,000,000 policy?). 5x the face amount in a conversion of a child rider is fairly common. Never meant to imply that it was the upper limit.
Obviously, 16x is very generous and allows the parents to purchase a much smaller rider ($62,500), saving them money in the process. Very commendable. It's always true that there will be no medical underwriting in such a conversion.
Some of those riders don't allow that large a conversion at one time, but as a series of increases over several years, usually at an increased cost of insurance with each increment, so it's also a little more expensive than converting all at one time. Then again, not many 18-26 year olds need $1,000,0000 at that time either and would be unlikely to convert for the full amount -- got to save money for the cars and parties, you know.
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 02:43 pm Post Subject:
The large mutuals all allow much more than 500%. (Guardian, Northwestern, Mass Mutual, New York Life)
2x the face amount up to $125,000 with 7 or 8 purchase options seem to be about standard for these companies.
Ex. Joe buys a $50,000 policy for his kid. As an adult, his kid can purchase $100,000 8 different times.
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 04:25 pm Post Subject: life insurance
I don't have an account at any of the above Insurance companies. Some years ago, I was interested in 'Guardian'. However....they didn't seem to answer my questions and didn't seem to know what they were talking about. Just about every question, I had for them, was "I'm not sure..I'll get back to you."..and, NOPE they never did.
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 02:42 am Post Subject: insurance
The company purchased policies on their employees without the employees consent
I don't know why I didn't respond to THIS quote. My EX husband worked at Walmart for over 15 years. Bottom line is:............the particular store he worked in, in the state of PA DID need my EX's consent for ANY kind of policy they 'covered' him with. I hope this answers your question......'NOT MAX' ( or whomever you go by now).Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 03:42 am Post Subject:
SDCharger, how would you know that you are correct?
I am not saying that you are wrong. It may very well be the case that in PA, for the WalMart case, employees needed to sign something. However, if the "dead peasant" insurance was put in force on your husband, and he didn't need to sign something, how would you know?
What is 100% fact is that I'm correct that it is possible to buy insurance on somebody without their knowledge. It is rare and it is only done in unusual situations and it's typically for big bucks. Very few companies will do this. In fact, the only company that will do this in the U.S. that I know about is Petersen's.
I just want correct information posted. A board like this that let's incorrect information go unchallenged is useless.
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 05:30 pm Post Subject:
SDCharger, how would you know that you are correct?
Because..I know.It may very well be the case that in PA, for the WalMart case, employees needed to sign something
YEP...that's what I said.I just want correct information posted
Then I HIGHLY suggest that you post it CORRECTLY!! If you're NOT sure how to post something, why don't you ask MAX?Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:10 pm Post Subject:
Look how this thread started.
An otherwise anonymous poster on another thread would like to insist that he can obtain $1,000,000 of life insurance on a proposed insured without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured.
It took months of beating up on you to get you to see that I was correct about our beneficiary arguments. If you want to have it out with me again, you will once again come to the conclusion that I'm correct.
Petersen's International Underwriters of Valencia California will underwrite a policy in the State of California (Max's state) for over $1,000,000 without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured. People, like Max, may try to explain the reasons for this, but nobody in the industry is going to come on here and post that I'm wrong.
Your buddy, Max, also admitted that California changed their law strictly due to the Walmart case.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 02:22 am Post Subject: insurance
That is in the state of California...not here. My brother-in-law ALSO changed a Law in California, as well. It sure helps when he (bother-in-law) workes for the Atty Generals Office of Ca (in San Diego). ..LOL i don't know the Laws in Ca..I no longer live there.
Add your comment