Does it pay to add accidental death benefit to the life policy? Would death in a road rage be considered for accidental death benefits?
Total Comments: 52
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 03:11 pm Post Subject:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100% of accidental deaths happened to people under the age of 78. This is 117,000 deaths. Because there were 2.4 million deaths, 1.2 million of them would have occured before age 78. This means that 10% of all deaths for people under the age of 78 were due to accident. In other words, there is actually a greater than 90% chance that a death before age 78 is not due to an accident.
Sorry, but your reasoning is just a little flawed, so let me see if I can make this just a little clearer.
I am not an actuary, but my understanding of mortality tables is that they represent statistics showing the percentage of persons who will die at any given age or the probability that someone will be alive at a certain age. I try just to keep it simple.
The 2001 CSO Mortality Table shows that the life expectancy of a male age 35 is 42.08 years and a female of the same age is expected to live 45.78 years. I have simply rounded things off and view our life expectancy to be age 78.
The original question was whether or not it is a good idea to purchase the Accidental Death Benefit when buying life insurance. That decision, of course, is a personal decision to be made by the insurance applicant and everyone should understand some facts.
Here is a breakdown of deaths in the U. S. by cause of death and number of deaths, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract, 1999:
Motor Vehicle - 43,649
Falls - 14,986
Poisoning - 9,510
Fires - 3,741
Drowning - 3,488
Inhalation/Ingestion - 3,206
Complications of medical procedures - 2,929
Firearms - 1,134
The report went on to say that every year there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residental swimming pools and one child killed by a gun for every 1 million guns.
The CDC's 2004 report breaks down accidental deaths by age group and shows the percentage of all deaths in each age group which were the result of accidental death:
Even though accidental deaths account for 5% of all deaths in the U. S., the leading cause of death prior to age 35 is unintentional accidents. It just can't get any clearer.
If he would have had a heart attack instead or if it was an intentional suicidal act, and the hospital bills were the same, the family would have needed just as much coverage and ADD wouldn't have paid a dime.
I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this comment was, but I would advise you to be very careful about the "heart attack". This one topic could cover several pages, but I will try to keep it brief. There are circumstances in which a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident. One example would be trauma associated with an auto accident, another could be complications from a medical procedure. This will give you something to research. There have been court battles over this one. The point I was trying to make is that if the family had purchased the accidental death benefit, the proceeds would have been at least doubled.
We don't know how death will occurs. Therefore, get insurance that will pay regardless of how death occurs.
I agree with you here, but for the small amount of additional premium to add double or triple indemnity to a life insurance policy, a person or couple with a family would be wise to consider adding this benefit to their policy.
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 05:09 pm Post Subject:
Even though accidental deaths account for 5% of all deaths in the U. S., the leading cause of death prior to age 35 is unintentional accidents. It just can't get any clearer.
It's irrelevant if it is the leading cause of death. "Accidents" being the leading cause of death compares accidents to heart attacks and compares it to cancer and compares it to the flu and compares it to suicide and compares it every other thing that can kill a person. Instead, "accidental death" needs to be compared to the sum total of death at all ages. Additionally, only accidents in which one would be able to claim the accidental death benefit counts.
At all ages, a death is more likely to occur for a reason other than a accident.
I am not an actuary,
Neither am I. Put on your actuary hat for a minute. The insurance companies need to make money. Why would accidental death be inexpensive? There's only one answer. They don't have to pay many claims. It's very cheap and yet it's still a money maker for the insurance company.
I
have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this comment was, but I would advise you to be very careful about the "heart attack". This one topic could cover several pages, but I will try to keep it brief. There are circumstances in which a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident. One example would be trauma associated with an auto accident, another could be complications from a medical procedure. This will give you something to research. There have been court battles over this one. The point I was trying to make is that if the family had purchased the accidental death benefit, the proceeds would have been at least doubled.
The purpose was simply that we can't predict death. Yes, a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident, but so what? Most heart attacks are not attributed to an accident. Who would ever want to have a court battle to see if a death claim will be paid? Why be put in that position? Instead of needing to get double proceeds, make sure that the family gets what they need.
I agree with you here, but for the small amount of additional premium to add double or triple indemnity to a life insurance policy, a person or couple with a family would be wise to consider adding this benefit to their policy.
Why pay money to get a windfall that this is more than what is needed? This advice is equivalent to recommending that someone plays the lottery because it is only a few dollars every week.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 08:40 am Post Subject:
Without interrupting the debate that's been on between Maze and Expert, I'd like to know bit more from Goldenz about the statement he made.
Don't forget that all of those deaths listed in statistics as "accidental" do not necessarily qualify under the insurance company's definition of it.
How do they differ?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 08:46 am Post Subject:
I think buying accidental death benefit make sense for someone who with some certainties knows that he would die in an accident, may be a racer or a biker. What do you say guyz? :D
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:37 am Post Subject:
Rupert, Accidental death policies often have exclusions and limitations. For instance, a traffic accident caused by drunk driving may not result in a claim, but it's still an accident.
InsAmi, dangerous occupations/avocations need to be disclosed in the application. If someone does something that increases the chances of accidental death, not only might they not be able to get accidental death coverage, but they may have trouble getting any coverage at a reasonable rate. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that their family needs just as much money if they die of a heart attack.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:44 am Post Subject: insurance
Why would accidental death be inexpensive?
I don't think Accidental Death Insurance should be a higher premium than 'regular' insurance. As I was saying in another post, anything can happen over the road. Whether you're driving a race car or driving to work. Accidents DO happen ( I'm sorry to say).
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:36 pm Post Subject:
I am in support of Simon's view that it makes more sense to have Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) Insurance. This is because life insurance doesn't not cover dismemberment of an arm or a leg due to accident.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 01:35 pm Post Subject:
I don't think Accidental Death Insurance should be a higher premium than 'regular' insurance. As I was saying in another post, anything can happen over the road. Whether you're driving a race car or driving to work. Accidents DO happen ( I'm sorry to say).
Accidental death insurance doesn't have a higher premium. It has a lower premium. This is because the majority of deaths won't result in an accidental death claim. Anything can happen anywhere. This is why a policy that only pays for certain events doesn't make sense.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 01:37 pm Post Subject:
I am in support of Simon's view that it makes more sense to have Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance. This is because life insurance doesn't not cover dismemberment of an arm or a leg due to accident.
Do you need money just because you lose your arm? Or, do you need money because losing your arm causes you to be unable to work? If it is the latter, don't you need money regardless of what kind of disability causes you not to be able to work?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 02:39 pm Post Subject: insurance
It doesn't matter HOW you're Disabled..you STILL need the money to pay bills, etc. However.....you DO have to prove you're Disabled. For Example: It's easier to prove you have lost a limb (physical) than to prove there is something mental wrong with you.
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 03:11 pm Post Subject:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 100% of accidental deaths happened to people under the age of 78. This is 117,000 deaths. Because there were 2.4 million deaths, 1.2 million of them would have occured before age 78. This means that 10% of all deaths for people under the age of 78 were due to accident. In other words, there is actually a greater than 90% chance that a death before age 78 is not due to an accident.
Sorry, but your reasoning is just a little flawed, so let me see if I can make this just a little clearer.
I am not an actuary, but my understanding of mortality tables is that they represent statistics showing the percentage of persons who will die at any given age or the probability that someone will be alive at a certain age. I try just to keep it simple.
The 2001 CSO Mortality Table shows that the life expectancy of a male age 35 is 42.08 years and a female of the same age is expected to live 45.78 years. I have simply rounded things off and view our life expectancy to be age 78.
The original question was whether or not it is a good idea to purchase the Accidental Death Benefit when buying life insurance. That decision, of course, is a personal decision to be made by the insurance applicant and everyone should understand some facts.
Here is a breakdown of deaths in the U. S. by cause of death and number of deaths, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract, 1999:
Motor Vehicle - 43,649
Falls - 14,986
Poisoning - 9,510
Fires - 3,741
Drowning - 3,488
Inhalation/Ingestion - 3,206
Complications of medical procedures - 2,929
Firearms - 1,134
The report went on to say that every year there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residental swimming pools and one child killed by a gun for every 1 million guns.
The CDC's 2004 report breaks down accidental deaths by age group and shows the percentage of all deaths in each age group which were the result of accidental death:
Ages 1-4 - 34.3%
Ages 5-9 - 39.0%
Ages 10-14 - 39.0%
Ages 15-19 - 49.8%
Ages 20-24 - 43.7%
Ages 25-34 - 31.9%
Ages 35-44 - 19.3%
Ages 45-54 - 9.5%
Ages 55-64 - 2.5%
Even though accidental deaths account for 5% of all deaths in the U. S., the leading cause of death prior to age 35 is unintentional accidents. It just can't get any clearer.
If he would have had a heart attack instead or if it was an intentional suicidal act, and the hospital bills were the same, the family would have needed just as much coverage and ADD wouldn't have paid a dime.
I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this comment was, but I would advise you to be very careful about the "heart attack". This one topic could cover several pages, but I will try to keep it brief. There are circumstances in which a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident. One example would be trauma associated with an auto accident, another could be complications from a medical procedure. This will give you something to research. There have been court battles over this one. The point I was trying to make is that if the family had purchased the accidental death benefit, the proceeds would have been at least doubled.
We don't know how death will occurs. Therefore, get insurance that will pay regardless of how death occurs.
I agree with you here, but for the small amount of additional premium to add double or triple indemnity to a life insurance policy, a person or couple with a family would be wise to consider adding this benefit to their policy.
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 05:09 pm Post Subject:
Even though accidental deaths account for 5% of all deaths in the U. S., the leading cause of death prior to age 35 is unintentional accidents. It just can't get any clearer.
It's irrelevant if it is the leading cause of death. "Accidents" being the leading cause of death compares accidents to heart attacks and compares it to cancer and compares it to the flu and compares it to suicide and compares it every other thing that can kill a person. Instead, "accidental death" needs to be compared to the sum total of death at all ages. Additionally, only accidents in which one would be able to claim the accidental death benefit counts.
At all ages, a death is more likely to occur for a reason other than a accident.
I am not an actuary,
Neither am I. Put on your actuary hat for a minute. The insurance companies need to make money. Why would accidental death be inexpensive? There's only one answer. They don't have to pay many claims. It's very cheap and yet it's still a money maker for the insurance company.
I
have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this comment was, but I would advise you to be very careful about the "heart attack". This one topic could cover several pages, but I will try to keep it brief. There are circumstances in which a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident. One example would be trauma associated with an auto accident, another could be complications from a medical procedure. This will give you something to research. There have been court battles over this one. The point I was trying to make is that if the family had purchased the accidental death benefit, the proceeds would have been at least doubled.
The purpose was simply that we can't predict death. Yes, a "heart attack" can be attributed to an accident, but so what? Most heart attacks are not attributed to an accident. Who would ever want to have a court battle to see if a death claim will be paid? Why be put in that position? Instead of needing to get double proceeds, make sure that the family gets what they need.
I agree with you here, but for the small amount of additional premium to add double or triple indemnity to a life insurance policy, a person or couple with a family would be wise to consider adding this benefit to their policy.
Why pay money to get a windfall that this is more than what is needed? This advice is equivalent to recommending that someone plays the lottery because it is only a few dollars every week.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 08:40 am Post Subject:
Without interrupting the debate that's been on between Maze and Expert, I'd like to know bit more from Goldenz about the statement he made.
Don't forget that all of those deaths listed in statistics as "accidental" do not necessarily qualify under the insurance company's definition of it.
How do they differ?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 08:46 am Post Subject:
I think buying accidental death benefit make sense for someone who with some certainties knows that he would die in an accident, may be a racer or a biker. What do you say guyz? :D
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:37 am Post Subject:
Rupert, Accidental death policies often have exclusions and limitations. For instance, a traffic accident caused by drunk driving may not result in a claim, but it's still an accident.
InsAmi, dangerous occupations/avocations need to be disclosed in the application. If someone does something that increases the chances of accidental death, not only might they not be able to get accidental death coverage, but they may have trouble getting any coverage at a reasonable rate. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that their family needs just as much money if they die of a heart attack.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:44 am Post Subject: insurance
Why would accidental death be inexpensive?
I don't think Accidental Death Insurance should be a higher premium than 'regular' insurance. As I was saying in another post, anything can happen over the road. Whether you're driving a race car or driving to work. Accidents DO happen ( I'm sorry to say).Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:36 pm Post Subject:
I am in support of Simon's view that it makes more sense to have Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) Insurance. This is because life insurance doesn't not cover dismemberment of an arm or a leg due to accident.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 01:35 pm Post Subject:
I don't think Accidental Death Insurance should be a higher premium than 'regular' insurance. As I was saying in another post, anything can happen over the road. Whether you're driving a race car or driving to work. Accidents DO happen ( I'm sorry to say).
Accidental death insurance doesn't have a higher premium. It has a lower premium. This is because the majority of deaths won't result in an accidental death claim. Anything can happen anywhere. This is why a policy that only pays for certain events doesn't make sense.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 01:37 pm Post Subject:
I am in support of Simon's view that it makes more sense to have Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance. This is because life insurance doesn't not cover dismemberment of an arm or a leg due to accident.
Do you need money just because you lose your arm? Or, do you need money because losing your arm causes you to be unable to work? If it is the latter, don't you need money regardless of what kind of disability causes you not to be able to work?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 02:39 pm Post Subject: insurance
It doesn't matter HOW you're Disabled..you STILL need the money to pay bills, etc. However.....you DO have to prove you're Disabled. For Example: It's easier to prove you have lost a limb (physical) than to prove there is something mental wrong with you.
Add your comment