Friday, August 7, 2009

Don't kill your life insurance policy

Don't kill your life insurance policy
  • Most policies have two major exclusions that can invalidate claims.
  • Burden of proof on insurers to prove what they do, don't pay.
  • Honesty protects policyholders; revealing too many details unwise.

The high-profile deaths of actors Heath Ledger and David Carradine -- both of which initially were thought to be suicides -- have brought attention to a serious financial question: Can certain factors (such as suicide) invalidate a life insurance policy?

In some cases, the answer is yes. The trouble starts with a few words known as "an exclusion" that may be found in a life insurance contract. An exclusion is a circumstance -- such as a particular cause of death or an allegation of fraud -- that invalidates a claim.

How likely is it your heirs will end up in court fighting for the benefit you're paying for now?

People who work in the industry insist it's relatively rare for life insurance companies to fight death claims.

"If the applicant does what's right, then the insurance company will do it. It's not a bait and switch; it's not something they're trying to avoid," says Rich Fuller, owner of Special Risk Services, an insurance agency in Littleton, Colo.

However, others are not so sure. For example, Joseph Belth, professor emeritus of insurance at Indiana University in Bloomington, says some insurance companies routinely resist paying claims that take place within the first two years after a policy is written.

"Many of (the claims they resist) are small policies and the people are not in the position to mount a real battle," says Belth, who also edits The Insurance Forum.

"There's really not enough money involved to interest a lawyer in getting into it, so (the beneficiaries) aren't really in a position to fight it."

2 big exclusions

Exclusions are not as prevalent as they used to be. In the past, many life insurance contracts contained exclusions for deaths due to acts of war, commissions of felony or even participation in riots.

Nowadays, some of these more oddball exclusions may still survive in group insurance, especially accidental death and dismemberment, or AD&D, insurance. However, the vast majority of life insurance policies include only two exclusions:

  • Death by suicide. This one is pretty straightforward and is intended to prevent suicidal people from taking out a big life insurance policy to ensure their heirs will get a million-dollar payday.
  • Material misrepresentation on your insurance application. This includes any intentional falsehoods or omitting key information that an insurance company would use to decide whether and at what cost to cover you.

In most states, these exclusions only apply for a limited time because of what's known as an "incontestability clause," says R. Marshall Jones, a life insurance consultant based in West Palm Beach, Fla.

“The burden is always on the insurance company to prove what they're supposed to pay.”

"In general, the contract will say that the death claim cannot be denied because of a misstatement of fact after the contract has been in force for more than two years," Jones says.

The only way an insurance company can contest the claim after that is if the company can prove intentional fraud, Jones says.

Unfortunately for Ledger's family, the actor's death occurred less than two years after his policy went into effect, and this exclusion and another related to his suspected suicide played a major role in the legal battle over a $10 million life insurance claim.

The insurance company in question, ReliaStar Life Insurance Co., alleged the star's death from a drug overdose was in fact a suicide and that Ledger had misled the company about his history of drug use during the underwriting process.
replacecontent-tcm:8-127983

Despite their allegations, ReliaStar eventually settled the case for an undisclosed amount in January 2009.

Survey: Sit Back and Watch (SBW) Award

I wish to give the SBW Award to the organisation or person in Singapore who sits back and watch, when it is their duty to step forward and uphold justice. Who do you nominate? Survey.

Off-loading the risky credit default swaps

I share this hypothesis. Does it look close to reality?

During the years prior to 2005, investment banks were making huge profits by issuing credit default swaps to guarantee the bonds issued by borrowers. They sold these swaps to other investors and made a good margin.

In the later years, as the economic situation becomes difficult and defaults on mortgages rises, the investment banks were saddled with swaps that they were not able to off-load to ther investors.

Some clever but dishonest banker conceived the idea of designing a structured product to hide these swaps and sell them to retail investors. They looked for countries that are wishes to be a financial hub and have a history of being pro-business and weak in consumer protection. Singapore and Hong Kong were selected.

This was the beginning of the crisis of the credit-linked notes.

Tan Kin Lian


Lehman Brothers Victim alliance in Hong Kong

The Lehman Brothers Victim alliance in Hong Kong web site has a news section that shows related Chinese and English news http://www.lbv.org.hk/content/pages/newsclip.php.

Happy National Day

To the citizens, permanent residents and friends of Singapore, Happy National Day - in advance for 9 August 2009.

Suing the Wrong Party

The situation in Singapore is very sad. The investors have to take an expensive and uncertain class action to sue the distributors of the credit-linked notes. Although the distributors were, in my opinion, negligent in selling the notes to the investors, they earned only a modest commission (maybe 3%) from the transaction.

A better solution is for the distributors to collaborate with the investors to sue the issuers of the credit linked notes. The issuers were the party that benefited most through the creation of these notes. They were also responsible for writing the prospectus in a manner to hide the true nature of the structured product, hence misleading not only the investors but the distributors as well.

The distributors had a fiduciary duty to their customers. It is only right that they should do all they can to help their customers. In this regard, the action of Great Eastern Life should be applauded. The other financial institutions should emulate this good example to do what is fair and right for their customers.

If the distributors, being financial institutions, buy over the credit linked notes for 50% of the invested sum (plus 50% of the ultimate proceeds), they will have the financial and legal means to sue the issuers to recover any damages that were caused by their action. The distributors can also decide on the best action to recover and protect the value of the underlying assets. In contrast, there is no way that the individual investors can take any of these actions.

Another possible action is for the government authority to take the appropriate action on behalf of the consumers. This was done in many countries, most notably in New York State and other parts of USA. Hong Kong is also adopting a similar approach, although done at a somewhat late stage.

I hope that the financial institutions and the government authority can take this action now. Better late than never.

Tan Kin Lian





Platform number in MRT stations


Do you have trouble identifying the right platform at our MRT stations? Read here for some suggestions to improve the sign. Share your own suggestions.