by Guest » Tue Nov 03, 2009 02:04 pm
Me and my boyfriend have been together for 3 years. We live together. He owns the house we now live in and makes the mortgage paments on that property. I pay all the other bills such as food, utilities, internet, cable. I was wanted to get a life insuracne plan to protect me in case something happens to him, just enouph to pay off the house and other expenses. Can I purchase life insurance on him.Or does he need to purchase it and put me as the beneficiary?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 01:30 am Post Subject:
The safest way would be for you to be the owner, he the insured and you the beneficary, that way he cannot change the beneficary....Is there a reason you think he might die soon? How about him getting one on you as well?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 01:48 am Post Subject:
As lori said, you should be the owner and the beneficiary. It's a smart thing for you to do. Both of you will have to sign the application. You'll sign as the owner and he'll sign as the insured.
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:01 am Post Subject:
See, insurance is all about the unforeseen risks associated with your life. He's the owner of the house and so he's paying for the mortgage. Over here, he'd also need to be a bit responsible towards you.
You've spent 3 years with him and bore all other household expenses. It's your right to safeguard your financial interests and thus getting a policy in his name seems a good option. Just make sure you explain everything to him before he signs for it.
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:58 am Post Subject: insurance
(Hello, everyone. Been sick for a while...now I'm back). All I have to say is becareful of who you decide to put Life Insurance on. I'm not saying your boyfriend isn't trustworthly. I'm just saying think about it for a while. Do you trust him? Is he trustworthy,etc? Lots of 'bad experiences' (with friends of mine) with situations like this.
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 06:24 am Post Subject:
I think getting a life insurance for him would be rather risky...especially considering that you two are not married and are still likely to find other partners. I'm not saying I'm negative about relationships, but like what sdchargersfan said, just be extra careful.
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:02 pm Post Subject:
I think getting a life insurance for him would be rather risky
How would that be risky?...Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 04:34 am Post Subject:
Married or not, because you basically depend on each other in one way or another, life insurance isn't a bad idea at all. In fact, it shows a level of responsibility seldom reached by those just 'going together.' I personally don't agree with the whole "risky / lack of trust / honesty / finding other partners" frame of mind. Husbands and wives can lie, cheat and steal just as easily as those who've been together for 3 years.
If you're not ready to get married. leave it alone and be happy - why screw up a good thing?
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 08:41 pm Post Subject:
Some errors in the suggestions earlier in this thread. Because the two of you are not married, neither of you can apply for insurance on the other as the owner of the policy. There is no insurable interest as required by contract law. Policies so obtained, in the event of a death, could be voided -- even 20 years down the road -- by the insurer, with their only liability being the return of premiums paid (and without interest in most states).
Please don't follow the often poor or BAD advice being offered by others on this forum.
It is, however, possible to obtain the coverage individually on yourselves (unlimited insurable interest exists) and then assign ownership to each other after the policies are issued. The insurer cannot stop such an assignment in the absence of fraud. As the new owner, each of you would have the right to name yourself as beneficiary of the policy proceeds. You cannot name the insured as a contingent beneficiary. The contract will state that in the event the owner predeceases the insured, the ownership will automatically transfer to the insured, who may then name a beneficiary of their choosing.
As InsInvestigator points out, life insurance is not a matter of lack of trust or risky or honesty. It is about leaving money for the needs of those who are left behind when a person dies before they've had a chance to accumulate an equivalent amount on their own which could be left instead.
What is important, as I started by saying above, is insurable interest. Without it, there can be no contract. If a policy is obtained without insurable interest being a fact, the policy is voidable on that basis. Hundreds of thousands of dollars could be lost because of someone else's bad advice. Will you be able to find them to collect the lost money from?
Do it right, as I've outlined above. If things don't work out between you, just reassign the policies back to each other.
One other point which has not been mentioned: who's going to pay whose premium? As the owner/beneficiary of a policy on someone else, you should be paying the premium to make sure the insurance remains in force. If a later exchange of policies becomes necessary, the mutual exchange should be sufficient to avoid any future tax liability, even if the total premiums paid for each policy are unequal because you would be acquiring your own insurance policy again, not someone else's. The IRS is just as concerned with the circumstances of an assignment as they are with the value received.
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 03:33 am Post Subject:
Sorry, Max, but there is no need for marriage in order to have insurable interest.
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 04:54 am Post Subject:
Max, be very careful about your assertions. Back in 1996, I led the investigation in CA against a number of companies that refused to allow gay couples to insure each other, claiming lack of insurable interest. In California, that requirement was changed back in 1991 and is no longer a factor. In fact, the companies were fined a great deal of money. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to look up the case law and forward it to you.
Mark
Add your comment