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: Sun Jan 03, 2010 01:35 pm Post Subject:
I apologize and am leaving your board
I intend to make sure of that.Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 04:33 pm Post Subject:
I know this because I was the lead Investigator in the case he mentioned involving gays'/lesbians.
I would like to know more about this case, for my OWN curousity, please. Sounds like it was very intense and a challange for you.The insurance companies and regulatory agencies must do their best to monitor cases in which policies are taken out with ill intent.
I'm going to 'narrow' this down a bit. Being in the Military, I've read, over the years, that spouces have tried to get the Soldiers (not JUST the Army, but, all brances of the Military) SGLI on "ill" pretenses. A few examples: At Ft. Bragg (years ago) a wife tried to poison her husband to get his SGLI. At a Marine base, in North Carolina, a wife shot and killed her husband to get HIS SGLI. I don't understand how people can do this...what the spouses are thinking.....and makes them (the spouses) think they can get away with such crimes.Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 06:28 pm Post Subject:
Hey Chargersfan, I hope your New Year is off to a great start.
In 1996, I investigated a case in which two female "partners" were not allowed to name each other as beneficiaries on their life insurance policies. Even though they were buying a house together, raising children, and living as any other married couple, the insurance company claimed that an insurable interest did not and could not exist.
I took statements and spent several months collecting documents which clearly showed an insurable interest existed between the two women and the insurance company was, in fact, violating their civil rights by not issuing the policies.
When the matter was brought before the Commissioner, the insurance company stood fast and was promptly fined $100,000.
In my opinion, the Commissioner was being very cautious not to let one of the Bay Area's Social Action/Gay/Lesbian groups sink their teeth into this case as this could very well have turned into a media frenzy and placed him in the proverbial spotlight.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 08:29 pm Post Subject: insurance
Happy New Year to you, too!! WOW!!....I think that WAS violating the rights that that couple have. The state of CA seems to 'walk the line' when it comes to Gay/Lesbian issues. 'Yes, they can. No, they can't' kind of deal. That's crazy!!
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:52 pm Post Subject:
A lot of changes between 1996 and 2010.. I doubt you'd see this again now..
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 08:33 pm Post Subject:
Hey Lori, wanna know what gives me a great feeling about my job? Knowing that some of the things I did back in 1996 are the reason for the change.
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 08:48 pm Post Subject:
I remember earlier in my career and writing policies on homosexual couples. We would simply put the parents as the beneficiaries and then change the beneficiary at the policy delivery.
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 09:27 pm Post Subject:
And I'm so glad you no longer do things that could very well be considered fraudulent.
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 09:43 pm Post Subject:
What's fraudulent about it? The last time I checked, the owner has the right to change their beneficiary anytime that they want. There also isn't any language stating that they don't plan on changing beneficiaries.
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:23 pm Post Subject:
Some companies find this to be bad behavior, really stupid I know. I remember when I became an appointed broker with MetLife, they gave me their agent's handbook/guide they give their career agents. In the booklet, which I didn't read for several months afterwards, they list certain transactions that were not allowed, they included:
- Selling a life insurance policy intentionally for the purpose of later assignment of a beneficiary who is a church or non-profit entity
- Selling a life insurance policy with the intent/idea that it could/will be used for either a life or viatical settlement.
I've also submitted business to Mutual of Omaha, their application asks in several places if the insured intends to change the beneficiary or owner of the policy after issue.
What you did was not illegal, but I think insuranceinvestigator was refering to changes in laws and practices that no longer make this much of an issue.
Add your comment