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: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:52 am Post Subject:
I'm not arguing with you. I was just asking the question. I have no reason to doubt that in your state, the Wal-Mart employees may have given permission for the insurance.
However, if the application was signed in another state, the insurance laws of your state wouldn't matter, so it is possible that insurance was purchased on your husband without his knowledge.
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:32 am Post Subject: insurance
NOPE...the application was signed HERE...in the state of PA. Hope I don't have to repeat that TOO many times to you.
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:13 pm Post Subject:
You are missing what I'm saying. I understand that your husband signed an application in Pennsylvania.
What neither of us knows is whether another application was signed in another state that your husband didn't know about it and only had to be signed by the applicant, Wal-Mart.
Don't argue about this because you and your ex have no way of knowing if this took place or not.
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 03:34 pm Post Subject:
so it is possible that insurance was purchased on your husband without his knowledge.
Again..NO it was NOT bought without his knowledge. He was told this.Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 03:50 pm Post Subject:
Let me try this again. I understand that a policy was purchased with his knowledge.
What I'm telling you is that you would have no way of knowing if one was also purchased without his knowledge.
I'm not trying to say that this happened. I'm simply pointing out that you wouldn't know.
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 01:01 am Post Subject: insurance
As I said in another post, I REALLY need to be more cautious on WHO I talk to now...don't I?
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:14 pm Post Subject:
Yes. You need to be careful. You might want to start by only talking to people who give you correct information.
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:24 pm Post Subject:
fjalro is correct, to a degree. If everything were done legally, there would be a paper trail depending on the size of the policy. Obviously the taxes that would come due on the premiums paid could be much better concealed when the company (employer) paid it itself.
Still though, the insured (employee) could be left essentially in the dark.
Keep in mind that in many states the law will dictate different possible scenarios.
Both of you appear to be looking for a sort of technical gotcha here.
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:33 pm Post Subject: insurance
You need to be careful. You might want to start by only talking to people who give you correct information.
OF COURSE I'm talking to people that give me correct info. Don't need to worry about me.Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:58 pm Post Subject:
Sorry, SDcharger, but you are the one person who needs people to worry about her. You have proven yourself to be stubborn when presented with information that goes against your incorrect beliefs.
Add your comment