by lizking3 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 08:31 pm
I discovered a life insurance policy my ex-boyfriend had taken out on me 8 months before we split, naming him as the beneficiary but me as the owner. I was not involved in the application process and he has been paying the premium for the past six years. Is this legal?
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 07:07 pm Post Subject:
Hey Idiot! She clearly states that she did not participate in the application process. She didn't know the policy was being taken out on her life! Get a clue! No insurable interest! Go away!
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 08:13 pm Post Subject:
Oops. She is the owner of the policy. One always has insurable interest in their own life. Who is the idiot now? Insurable interest must exist between the owner and the insured at the time of application. It doesn't sound like I should be the one going away.
More than likely with this case, since the application was over 6 years ago, she probably simply forgot about this policy.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 08:39 pm Post Subject:
Assuming again! She clearly stated that she didn't participate! She didn't say she forgot about it. She states that she clearly didn't know about the policy. The boyfriend clearly forged her signature. You are such an idiot. Assume assume assume. True she is the owner but the beneficiary and the owner both have to have insurable interest. You can not buy a policy on your life and list a perfect stranger or someone who does not have and interest in your life as beneficiary. After the policy is issued you can change that but at the inception of the policy, there has to be insurable interest. Go lay by your food bowl.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 09:03 pm Post Subject:
Is the mean name calling done because you aren't sure how to handle being wrong?
It's possible that this whole thing is fraudulent. It's just that when someone is willing to do this, in most cases, they would be the owner so that they would have control. As it stands now, she could change the beneficiary and he wouldn't know.
I know that she said that she didn't participate. People forget things.
Let's assume that you are gay for a second. (Not meant to be a slam.) If you bought a policy with you as the owner and your live in boyfriend as the beneficiary, would an insurance company approve the policy?
You are saying "no" by what you are posting. However, go ahead and call a few insurance companies on Monday. Some companies may not be willing to write the policy, but most will.
An individual insurance company can CHOOSE to not write a policy if insurable interest doesn't exist between the owner and the beneficiary. However, the concept of insurable interest, from a legal standpoint, is only required to exist between the owner of the policy and the insured. One ALWAYS has an insurable interest on their own life.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:07 am Post Subject:
Most states do not require that an insurable interest exist between beneficiary and insured/owner, but there are a couple still stuck in the 19th century. The California Insurance Code specifically states that the owner of a life insurance policy has an absolute right to name anyone of his choosing as the beneficiary, without regard to insurable interest or marital status. An insurer is powerless to dictate who may/may not be a beneficiary under the CIC (obvioulsy, it cannot be the insured).
As for the issue of gays/lesbians, California and many other states have laid to rest the concept that an insurable interest does exist between persons who have a registered domestic partnership.
An insurable interest can exist between persons who rely on another for financial or other necessary support, so it is possible for unmarried "boy/girl-friends" to have an insurable in one another. It's up to the insurance company to determine whether there is insurable interest or not when it's not readily apparent.
But the insurance laws of most, if not all, states clearly articulate that a contract of insurance (regardless of form--life, health, auto, etc) is VOID if there was no insurable interest at the time of policy issue. If an insurer can demonstrate that there was no insurable interest between a boy/girl-friend when it issued to policy, their only obligation would be to refund the aggregate premiums less loans & interest, if any.
Obviously, there is not enough information provided in the original post to offer absolute advice. But if the OP is the owner, she has an absolute right to change the beneficiary (unless, as InsTeacher points out, the beneficiary is irrevocable, which complicates the matter).
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:39 am Post Subject:
I am not wrong you are just having a hard time understanding the question. You keep assuming. Assumption is a dangerous thing and if you do the same in your everyday practice with your clients, i would be afraid to be your client. You assuming everything is dangerous.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 01:21 am Post Subject:
Dhop, you are making absolute statements that are simply wrong. Tell me where my understanding is wrong. You believe that insurable interest must exist with the beneficiary. I am telling you that policies can be purchased without an insurable interest with the beneficiary as long as their is an insurable interest between the owner and the insured.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 02:25 am Post Subject:
I apologize and am leaving your board
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:45 pm Post Subject:
dhop, I hope that you choose to stay. Just post correct information and don't guess at answers.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:23 am Post Subject:
Right on Max!! Great post.
The Insurable Interest rule is very vague and in some states, like California, hasn't been a factor since 1991 ( I know this because I was the lead Investigator in the case he mentioned involving gays'/lesbians.
Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. If one were to accept that an insurable interest couldn't possibly exist between a boyfriend/girlfriend and therefore, they cannot take out life insurance policies on each other, without the knowledge or approval of the partner, one would also have to believe the same restriction applies to husbands/wives - and that is simply not the case.
The insurance companies and regulatory agencies must do their best to monitor cases in which policies are taken out with ill intent. If the OP has reason to beleive the ex took out a policy because he intended to harm her, she needs to contact the police or local DA right away.
Otherwise, she needs to inform him, via registered mail with a return receipt, that she does not approve of the policy in question and plans to inform authorities if he does not cancel it right away.
Honestly, the boy/girlfriend
Add your comment