AARP GLOBE LIFE Coverage

[gordon112]

The LH policy was also a replacement and it's check no on it as well. Couldn't have gotten it issued had he not. LH won't do replacements in Ky.[/quote]

Are you saying LH will refuse any company replacing there policies in KY? or that they don't replace other companies policies? or are you saying you can't replace policies in KY? That sounds like a crazy state to do life insurance if this is the case...but I must be not understanding you.

 

[pcbinsurance]

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/krs/304-12/030.pdf

 

[VolAgent]

Are you saying LH will refuse any company replacing there policies in KY? or that they don't replace other companies policies? or are you saying you can't replace policies in KY? That sounds like a crazy state to do life insurance if this is the case...but I must be not understanding you.

You're not understanding him. Kentucky has a weird rule about replacement. If you replace a policy, you continue the contestability period it had, which means the new policy might not even have one. Because of that, JD says that some companies will not allow replacements in Kentucky. Either you write the person new additional coverage or no coverage with that company.

No company is able to refuse replacements of their business. After all, all the policyowner has to do is stop payments and its replaced.

 

[gordon112]

You're not understanding him. Kentucky has a weird rule about replacement. If you replace a policy, you continue the contestability period it had, which means the new policy might not even have one. Because of that, JD says that some companies will not allow replacements in Kentucky. Either you write the person new additional coverage or no coverage with that company.

No company is able to refuse replacements of their business. After all, all the policyowner has to do is stop payments and its replaced.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. It actually is a nice law that protects consumers and helps the replacing agent. I would love that law here in FL. I can understand why some companies will not do replacements without a new con testability period.

 

[VolAgent]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. It actually is a nice law that protects consumers and helps the replacing agent. I would love that law here in FL. I can understand why some companies will not do replacements without a new con testability period.

How does it protect consumers? A policy is only contestable if the insured lied in answering the health questions. Tell the truth, the insurance company pays.

Sure, the insurance company could contest valid claims, but insureds could lie in answering health questions on both the original and replacing policy.

 

[gordon112]

How does it protect consumers? A policy is only contestable if the insured lied in answering the health questions. Tell the truth, the insurance company pays.

Sure, the insurance company could contest valid claims, but insureds could lie in answering health questions on both the original and replacing policy.

Either way it is a better law for the consumer leaving no reason for a replacing company to contest a claim. Sometimes people don't lie but didn't realize a question is yes. It's not that its always somebody not telling the truth.

I would imagine the companies that do replacement in KY follow through with proper underwriting practices that may be a bit more strict then other states.

The fact that LH doesn't is not surprising since they don't beat anybody in price or benefits. It's simply not feasible for them or worth it.

 

[jdeasy]

The LH policy was also a replacement and it's check no on it as well. Couldn't have gotten it issued had he not. LH won't do replacements in Ky.

Are you saying LH will refuse any company replacing there policies in KY? or that they don't replace other companies policies? or are you saying you can't replace policies in KY? That sounds like a crazy state to do life insurance if this is the case...but I must be not understanding you.[/quote]

I didn't phrase that very well I guess. The law in Ky is that the new policy cannot be contestable to any greater extent than the replaced policy. Because of that law some companies will not do replacements here. LH is one. Settlers, AmAm and Shenandoah, {when they were doing business}, are some more that I know of that won't accept replacement business in Ky. I'm sure there are more.

That doesn't keep agents that write those companies from doing them anyway and just not doing the replacement forms. We had a kinda of big deal about that last year when a Settlers agent replaced an LH policy and didn't do the replacement paperwork. Settlers couldn't contest the policy even though they had no knowledge of the replacement and would not have accepted the application had they known.

The law is the law and the fault/burden fell on the agent. I do know that Settlers paid the claim. I don't know how much they went after the agent and if the E&O would would kick in. I do know that agent is not in the business now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Either way it is a better law for the consumer leaving no reason for a replacing company to contest a claim. Sometimes people don't lie but didn't realize a question is yes. It's not that its always somebody not telling the truth.

I would imagine the companies that do replacement in KY follow through with proper underwriting practices that may be a bit more strict then other states.

The fact that LH doesn't is not surprising since they don't beat anybody in price or benefits. It's simply not feasible for them or worth it.

It's like many well intentioned laws that have unintended consequences. On balance i like the law and the protection it afford consumers but it also cuts out some companies that would be a better fit for the person.

There are some companies that abuse the contestabilty. The law was aimed at those companies. But, those companies then just refused to do replacements here and we were back to square one. Now the companies that accept replacements here are the ones that would most likely pay the calim anyway.

 

[VolAgent]

Either way it is a better law for the consumer leaving no reason for a replacing company to contest a claim. Sometimes people don't lie but didn't realize a question is yes. It's not that its always somebody not telling the truth.

Then the claim should be contested and denied. The policy was issued on the basis that the answer was no.

 

[jdeasy]

Then the claim should be contested and denied. The policy was issued on the basis that the answer was no.

I agree but I have also seen companies deny during contestabilty when the person died from something that was even asked about on the application. Or for taking a med a year ago that they forgot about because were no longer taking it and the medicine would have caused a decline if it had been disclosed.

Even had one company badger a widow on whether her husband kept secrets from her. They were asking because they could find any record of his going to the doctor and she had already told them that she never knew of him visiting the doctor over the past 10 years or so. The guy dies 3 months into his policy. They did eventually pay that one but the widow was/is still mad at the company and me.

 

[gordon112]

I agree but I have also seen companies deny during contestabilty when the person died from something that was even asked about on the application. Or for taking a med a year ago that they forgot about because were no longer taking it and the medicine would have caused a decline if it had been disclosed.

Even had one company badger a widow on whether her husband kept secrets from her. They were asking because they could find any record of his going to the doctor and she had already told them that she never knew of him visiting the doctor over the past 10 years or so. The guy dies 3 months into his policy. They did eventually pay that one but the widow was/is still mad at the company and me.

Yes, it is very common for somebody to misstate something. It is either they lied, didn't know what the question was, but said No anyways, or never was given the question from the agent. There is also grey areas on a lot of questions in an application.

That is an interesting case JD Having no medical records as proof of his health, I am not sure how they deny it. It sounds like they where trying to get information out of a widow that just lost her loved one and seems a bit shady...but they do it.