Contingent Payor Question

[Allen Trent]

Is that a TN app?

NO, that 1st one was a Michigan application. However, here is a Northwestern Mutual also that would apply in most, if not all, states. With policies with language like this on the application or in the policy contract language, a will or probate will not be involved even if the will clearly states X or Y becomes the owner of Life Policy #.... :

 

[rousemark]

NO, that 1st one was a Michigan application. However, here is a Northwestern Mutual also that would apply in most, if not all, states. With policies with language like this on the application or in the policy contract language, a will or probate will not be involved even if the will clearly states X or Y becomes the owner of Life Policy #.... :
View attachment 7181

I just looked at a few FU apps that I have and none have that language.

 

[Allen Trent]

I just looked at a few FU apps that I have and none have that language.

My guess is they have not thought of it or too much work/cost to update applications or policy forms.

But I would think it could save them some headaches with the issues when having to process claims tied to probate process or delays.

I know some carriers are starting to question if they should allow "per stirpes" beneficiary designations as many default as. The problem is that it is becoming hard for carriers to track down who is or isnt a bio/adopted child of a deceased primary beneficiary & some people have children from various relationships, current or past. Cant always trust a child beneficiary to disclose that dad also had another child that passed away & their 4 kids should receive their shares.

 

[WinoBlues]

I wonder how Community Property state factor in the equation also.

 

[rousemark]

My guess is they have not thought of it or too much work/cost to update applications or policy forms.

But I would think it could save them some headaches with the issues when having to process claims tied to probate process or delays.

I know some carriers are starting to question if they should allow "per stirpes" beneficiary designations as many default as. The problem is that it is becoming hard for carriers to track down who is or isnt a bio/adopted child of a deceased primary beneficiary & some people have children from various relationships, current or past. Cant always trust a child beneficiary to disclose that dad also had another child that passed away & their 4 kids should receive their shares.

When there is more than one beneficiary I eliminate that problem by always stating on the application "share and share alike, all to the survivor(s)"

 

[Allen Trent]

When there is more than one beneficiary I eliminate that problem by always stating on the application "share and share alike, all to the survivor(s)"

I can see that (per capita) with smaller face policies. But having only the survivors of the listed beneficiaries (living adult children of insured) decent size or sizeable policies can contradict their wills/trust or overall plans when they planned to have the children of the deceased parent receive their parents share. Most standard wills & trusts are per stirpes unless there are unique family dynamics, situations. Same for how many retirement accounts, annuities & larger life insurance cases