Pls Help Me Decide Between Guardian and UC Policy

[tvchild]

I think there have been some valid points to consider. Another thing you may want to look at is the strength of the company. What is the comdex rating, capitalization ratio etc. That is another thing to consider. Will the company be able to make good on their promise, to pay you if you get sick or injured and can't work.

In my opinion, Guardian is the winner out of these two choices. Union Central is a solid company, but when it comes to physicians it's a no-brainer for me. I'd look into see if you would be eligible for any kind of discount program available through Guardian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One more thing... Guardian's presumptive benefit beats UC by a mile. If you like to do anything outdoors where you risk breaking both your limbs you can't go wrong with it! Ask your insurance person about the benefit.

 

[scagnt83]

Union Central does offer compounding inflation, just ask for it; they also should offer around the same benefit amount as Guardian if you feel you need it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The residual (partial benefit) .... are quite a bit better.

How do you figure?
What about it sets guardian apart?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

While this might be very technically true, I'd want to check with Berkshire on this, I would find the probability of being in this situation very unlikely.

It states it very clearly; its part of the definition of Occupation in the policy...

And other than that they are exactly the same as far as the definition goes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Honestly there is no way to compare the two until they are apples to apples.

 

[BNTRS]

How do you figure?
What about it sets guardian apart?

Simple, Guardian offers up to 100% of the monthly benefit for the first 12 months of a partial disability, meaning partial loss of income could bring 100% of original income for 12 months, there's no such benefit in the UC policy.

Now, here's the biggy, the residual benefit at UC has both a loss of income and a loss of time/duties requirement. This is true for both the initial benefit and for the recovery benefit. No such requirement for loss of time/duties is required for the residual on the Guardian product, it's only an income loss trigger.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And other than that they are exactly the same as far as the definition goes.

I don't really understand what that Means
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, for a few other highlights as far as Guardian goes:

Waiver of premium is better at Guardian, 6 months no premiums due upon recovery.

COLA is better, the increased benefit is automatically added to the policy without additional premium charged. UC doesn't even give the option to purchase it as a GIO.

Guardian has a nicer waiver of elimination period, with a 5 year clock that provides benefits from day one for any disabling event after you've been on claim for at least 6 months.

 

[scagnt83]

Simple, Guardian offers up to 100% of the monthly benefit for the first 12 months of a partial disability, meaning partial loss of income could bring 100% of original income for 12 months, there's no such benefit in the UC policy.

This is not the clearest language in the policy, imo.

It sounds like you can qualify for up to 100% in the first under the residual rider; but it also states that
"we will pay you a benefit equal to your loss of income.."

And if you qualified for 100%, you would qualify for the base policy anyway... correct?

I must be missing something...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, here's the biggy, the residual benefit at UC has both a loss of income and a loss of time/duties requirement. This is true for both the initial benefit and for the recovery benefit. No such requirement for loss of time/duties is required for the residual on the Guardian product, it's only an income loss trigger.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is not correct, read it again.

There is an "or" in between the income requirement and the time requirement, not an "and"

And yes, UC requires that you have to be able to do one of your job duties... not a hard thing to satisfy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COLA is better, the increased benefit is automatically added to the policy without additional premium charged. UC doesn't even give the option to purchase it as a GIO.

You lost me in the bold...and you almost seem to be mixing the COLA and FIO riders into one statement.. do you mean the future increase option is automatically exercised?
If so it certainly does not say this.

Yes, the Guardian agent chose compounding which is better, but UC offers it as well.


UC has a Future Increase Option, and UC only requires financial justification; Guardian not only coordinates FIO increases with other DI policies in force, but they also look at your employment as well as income to determine eligibility.

UCs downfall with the FIO is that after year 3 they limit the increase to 55% of the base benefit.

 

[dgoldenz]

You lost me in the bold...and you almost seem to be mixing the COLA and FIO riders into one statement.. do you mean the future increase option is automatically exercised?
If so it certainly does not say this.

If you go on claim with Guardian, anything added with COLA stays as part of the base benefit if you come off claim. If you go back on claim again later on, the amount increased by COLA stays as part of the policy at no extra cost. Other companies charge extra premium to add that to the base benefit or reset back to the original benefit. Pretty sure that's what he was saying.

 

[BNTRS]

If you go on claim with Guardian, anything added with COLA stays as part of the base benefit if you come off claim. If you go back on claim again later on, the amount increased by COLA stays as part of the policy at no extra cost. Other companies charge extra premium to add that to the base benefit or reset back to the original benefit. Pretty sure that's what he was saying.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying.

This is not the clearest language in the policy, imo.

It sounds like you can qualify for up to 100% in the first under the residual rider; but it also states that
"we will pay you a benefit equal to your loss of income.."

And if you qualified for 100%, you would qualify for the base policy anyway... correct?

I must be missing something...

Here's what it means. Let's say you have someone with a $12k/mo benefit and a DI policy that pays 8k if on claim. The insured is 50% disability (lost 50% of his/her income). Guardian would pay $6k in monthly benefit for the first 12 months. If the disability remains at 50% starting month 13 and on, then the benefit would do what every other company does and begin paying $4k.

This is not correct, read it again.

There is an "or" in between the income requirement and the time requirement, not an "and"

And yes, UC requires that you have to be able to do one of your job duties... not a hard thing to satisfy.

Is this true of both the on claim and recovery benefit? My understanding of the recovery benefit was that it needed both. Meaning if you return to work you need to have a reduced income and loss of duties to continue to get paid.

As far as needing to be able to do one of your job duties, I'm not sure why that would matter regarding this.

 

[Beleriand]

Definitely Guardian is really better choice as UC Policy. That´s my short opinion.

 

[dgoldenz]

Definitely Guardian is really better choice as UC Policy. That´s my short opinion.

Spam sandwich.