by captab1249 » Thu Dec 31, 2009 04:07 am
mother died ,she was the owner of a policy that insures my stepfather and I am the beneficiary. Who is the owner of the policy now ?
_________________
_________________
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 05:02 am Post Subject:
Are you the primary beneficiary, or the contigent beneficiary? If you are the primary, you are owner of the policy now. If your listed as the contingent beneficiary, that means the primary will receive the life insurance proceeds, and the contingent would in case of the death of the primary holder. Do you have a copy of the policy in hand?
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 03:55 pm Post Subject: Crystalwarren1
Crystal you are hereby ordered to cease and desist! Surrender your license immediately! You are a threat to all you talk to about insurance. If the owner of a policy dies, the new owner becomes the INSURED, unless there is a contingent owner listed on the application,not the primary beneficiary!!!! I would be afraid to be your client!
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 05:34 pm Post Subject:
dhop, you may also want to surrender your license. At death, the policy does not automatically belong to the insured.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 05:45 pm Post Subject: Guest 1
you are wrong! At death of an owner of a life insurance policy, unless there is a contigent owner listed on the application the policy automatically belongs to the insured. Where did you get your license a cracker jack box?
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 07:04 pm Post Subject:
A life insurance policy is an asset that can be passed via one's will.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 07:09 pm Post Subject:
once again you are assuming. You know what happens when you assume? You were born! If there is no will, the insured becomes the owner.
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 08:22 pm Post Subject:
That's some nice back stepping. Why can't people just admit when they are wrong?
Now you are changing your answer to "if there is no contingent owner and there is no will", it will become the property of the insured.
Guess what. You are still wrong. It is an asset of the owner. If the owner dies intestate, the court will decide what happens to the owner's assets. This is simply one of those assets.
Let me give you an example. You own a life insurance policy and decide to sell it on the secondary market. I am now the owner of your policy. If I then die, do you really think that the probate court is going to give the possession of this asset to you and to not my wife and/or kids?
The bottom line is that a life insurance policy is an asset of the owner and treated like any other asset that doesn't pass via beneficiary.
(Readers, don't get confused. We are talking about the life insurance policy in which the insured is still alive and the owner dies.)
You are like a guy who recently left this board. He came on here making fun of people for giving wrong answers while doing it himself. Not answering is much better than giving wrong answers.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:33 am Post Subject:
Contract language in life insurance policies varies from insurer to insurer. Some never address the issue, some may state that the policy ownership will transfer to the insured, while others state that the owner's interest passes to his estate. Where the contract is silent on the matter, it may be governed by the Insurance Code or Probate Code of the state where the policy was issued or where the owner lived.
When dhop1070 erroneously states "The new owner becomes the INSURED" I think he meant to write "the insured becomes the new owner." The insured in a life insurance policy will not change in the absence of a rider/endorsement allowing substitution of a new insured, and proof of that individual's insurability.
While the concept of a "contingent owner" is plausible, I've never seen any such language discussing the topic in a typical life insurance policy. The only discussion is that of "assignment". A deceased owner is powerless to assign his interest in the contract, but it may be done testamentarily if the contract or state law allows. The language of the contract controls, unless it violates state law.
Joint ownership would be a better solution, but is also uncommon in life insurance due to the complications it would impose on the rights of ownership.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:42 am Post Subject:
Back tracking! Now i know you are an idiot. Dope smoker from California.
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 01:16 am Post Subject:
Dhop, that's a smart tact. Attack my use of the English language because you are realizing that you are wrong on the facts.
Pagination
Add your comment