Does anyone know the reputation of ING life insurance? Are t
by Guest » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:08 pm
please help.
Total Comments: 12
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:18 am Post Subject:
What exactly do you want to know? Good company, low rates, fair underwriting.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 09:52 am Post Subject:
Good company, low rates, fair underwriting.
Or it could simply be the claims settlement history.
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 02:20 pm Post Subject:
I've had good success with ING Relistar. They are using an electronic application with e-signature that is very slick. Cuts weeks off processing.
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 08:20 am Post Subject: Not happy with ING!
My Mother has been paying $20 premiums to ING since 1985. She is 86 years old. In January, 2010, she received a letter from ING stating she must pay $400 to keep her policy in force and then $150 premiums. Like she can really afford this!! They claim there is no equity left. I would not advise getting insurance through ING!! I feel they robbed my Mother. Where will she ever get insurance at her age? My Mother is devastated!!!! THANK YOU ING!!!!!
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 08:32 am Post Subject:
Sounds like Mom has a universal life policy that was not properly funded. Perhaps through no fault of her own, simply paying the premium she thought she was supposed to pay. Evidently, she did not learn to read her annual statements.
What's even more amazing is the $20 premium since 1985. At that rate, the policy should have collapsed years ago. Like in the 1990s. She probably added funds along the way.
She's lucky her premium is only $150. I can show you a client's in-force illustration that would have required him to pay almost $11,000 per year for 40 years to keep a $100,000 policy in force. Utterly ridiculous.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 03:46 am Post Subject:
As Max said, your mother's situation is not unique to ING, it's been a common problem with universal life insurance.
As far as reputation of Reliastar and ING goes...Heath Ledger
Situation was pretty nasty, they maintained that his policy, which was still in it's contestability period, would not pay a claim because he committed suicide. Later, when the medical examiner ruled his death an accidental overdose, ING still refused to pay citing news sources, including tabloids, that his death was a suicide.
The beneficiary in this case was his daughter (big planning mistake, she's not old enough) and litigation was needed. The parties reached a settlement, meaning the 10 million dollar death benefit never got paid, it wasn't a tax free payment, and some attorney's got to share in all this.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 09:44 pm Post Subject:
BNTRS, I don't know enough about the Heath Ledger case to comment. I imagine that you don't either.
Did they publicly say that they weren't paying because of suicide? My GUESS is that it doesn't matter either way. If it was suicide they don't have to pay. If it was drug use, it probably wouldn't be too hard to dig up the information that he lied on his application about his drug use. Either way, they wouldn't have to pay. In fact, in either case, they have a responsibility not to pay.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:16 pm Post Subject:
The first claim from them was they wouldn't pay due to suicide, they tied to maintain that is was suicide based on media reports. Accidental overdose was for use of legal drugs.
They they changed their stance slightly to claim that they weren't going to pay due to the possibility that he lied about illicit drug use.
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 01:28 am Post Subject:
Either way, it makes sense that they wouldn't pay. The family probably agreed to the settlement because they knew that the insurance company was correct about not paying.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 02:18 am Post Subject:
What exactly do you want to know? Good company, low rates, fair underwriting.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 09:52 am Post Subject:
Good company, low rates, fair underwriting.
Or it could simply be the claims settlement history.
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 02:20 pm Post Subject:
I've had good success with ING Relistar. They are using an electronic application with e-signature that is very slick. Cuts weeks off processing.
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 08:20 am Post Subject: Not happy with ING!
My Mother has been paying $20 premiums to ING since 1985. She is 86 years old. In January, 2010, she received a letter from ING stating she must pay $400 to keep her policy in force and then $150 premiums. Like she can really afford this!! They claim there is no equity left. I would not advise getting insurance through ING!! I feel they robbed my Mother. Where will she ever get insurance at her age? My Mother is devastated!!!! THANK YOU ING!!!!!
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 08:32 am Post Subject:
Sounds like Mom has a universal life policy that was not properly funded. Perhaps through no fault of her own, simply paying the premium she thought she was supposed to pay. Evidently, she did not learn to read her annual statements.
What's even more amazing is the $20 premium since 1985. At that rate, the policy should have collapsed years ago. Like in the 1990s. She probably added funds along the way.
She's lucky her premium is only $150. I can show you a client's in-force illustration that would have required him to pay almost $11,000 per year for 40 years to keep a $100,000 policy in force. Utterly ridiculous.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 03:46 am Post Subject:
As Max said, your mother's situation is not unique to ING, it's been a common problem with universal life insurance.
As far as reputation of Reliastar and ING goes...Heath Ledger
Situation was pretty nasty, they maintained that his policy, which was still in it's contestability period, would not pay a claim because he committed suicide. Later, when the medical examiner ruled his death an accidental overdose, ING still refused to pay citing news sources, including tabloids, that his death was a suicide.
The beneficiary in this case was his daughter (big planning mistake, she's not old enough) and litigation was needed. The parties reached a settlement, meaning the 10 million dollar death benefit never got paid, it wasn't a tax free payment, and some attorney's got to share in all this.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 09:44 pm Post Subject:
BNTRS, I don't know enough about the Heath Ledger case to comment. I imagine that you don't either.
Did they publicly say that they weren't paying because of suicide? My GUESS is that it doesn't matter either way. If it was suicide they don't have to pay. If it was drug use, it probably wouldn't be too hard to dig up the information that he lied on his application about his drug use. Either way, they wouldn't have to pay. In fact, in either case, they have a responsibility not to pay.
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:16 pm Post Subject:
The first claim from them was they wouldn't pay due to suicide, they tied to maintain that is was suicide based on media reports. Accidental overdose was for use of legal drugs.
They they changed their stance slightly to claim that they weren't going to pay due to the possibility that he lied about illicit drug use.
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 01:28 am Post Subject:
Either way, it makes sense that they wouldn't pay. The family probably agreed to the settlement because they knew that the insurance company was correct about not paying.
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 02:37 am Post Subject:
Ok, if you say so...
Add your comment