Insurance Agent Forum

[gmveesaert]

I'm watching the news this morning and they're talking about major medical coverage being denied for minor children not living with the policyowner, even though a family court has ordered the policyowner to cover the kids.

I'm thinking of a dad who gets his kids every other weekend who covers his kids on his employer's medical plan as per the divorce decree.

Can the insurance company really refuse the kids just because they live with Mom the majority of the time?

[VaDwayne]

Originally Posted by gmveesaert

I'm watching the news this morning and they're talking about major medical coverage being denied for minor children not living with the policyowner, even though a family court has ordered the policyowner to cover the kids.

I'm thinking of a dad who gets his kids every other weekend who covers his kids on his employer's medical plan as per the divorce decree.

Can the insurance company really refuse the kids just because they live with Mom the majority of the time?

WOW, if that's the case, the majority of child support agreements would be invalid.

[IndyAgentIDTMY]

Originally Posted by gmveesaert

I'm watching the news this morning and they're talking about major medical coverage being denied for minor children not living with the policyowner, even though a family court has ordered the policyowner to cover the kids.

I'm thinking of a dad who gets his kids every other weekend who covers his kids on his employer's medical plan as per the divorce decree.

Can the insurance company really refuse the kids just because they live with Mom the majority of the time?

Any links to this story or more details? I feel like we're not getting the whole story here, but this sounds like another fluff piece to me (i.e. another big evil insurance company trying to stick it to the little guy).

If they push hard enough and provide a copy of the divorce decree, the Carrier will probably offer coverage to the kids. Even if they stick to their guns and won't, just take the business to a company that will because they are out there.

[Norwayguy]

Originally Posted by VaDwayne

WOW, if that's the case, the majority of child support agreements would be invalid.

I'm not sure about that...I don't sell health but retirement accounts mainly and have looked at Divorce decrees and QDRO and I seem to remember 1 decree requiring the father to maintain health insurance coverage on the children and it did not specifically mention through his jobs which makes sense if he gets fired, changes jobs and no longer is offered group coverage his responsibility does not end.

[gmveesaert]

Sorry... found it. Health Insurance and Divorce - fox2now.com

I missed the first part in the live broadcast, I guess. Started 2 weeks ago?!

[stormtracker]

The burden of coverage in that case lies with the non-custodial parent whom is decreed to provide coverage. The court could care less about HOW coverage is provided, or through whom.

[gmveesaert]

Originally Posted by stormtracker

The burden of coverage in that case lies with the non-custodial parent whom is decreed to provide coverage. The court could care less about HOW coverage is provided, or through whom.

I carry coverage on the two of my children who are from my first marriage, even though I've always been the custodial parent, but I know a lot of divorced dads who have their children from divorce on their employer plans. What does this mean for them? Will they have to take them off their work plan & buy individual plans for them, as do those of us without employer plans? What happens if the parent can't afford to do that? Seems to me this is going to force more kids into the state's CHIP plan.

This is way too much power in the hands of an insurance company, in my opinion... not to mention the fact that we're talking about children here.

[ergammill]

Watched the video, not sure the lawyer is telling the whole story. (I'm also in MO and just called and asked a couple insurance companies about this and they have never heard of the problem)

1. Federal Law/COBRA requires 36 months coverage after divorce.

2. You can purchase/pay anyone's premium.

3. Group coverage through the employer is not going to care where they live, unless they live out of state, then there could be a provider problem.

4. If your policy covers college age children till 23 then it will cover the minor children also.

Sounds like this lawyer is not being completely truthful and wants government healthcare.


(this would mean if you sent your middle/high school children away to a private boarding school or military school or summer camp they would not be covered)

[LGilmore]

I call "shenanigans". I think this is a bs piece. she doesn't name the carrier or the case. It started "two weeks ago" I think somebody doesn't want to pay support for their kid and is simply telling a tall tale.

In every situation I've handled where there is a support order, it's been fine. Most don't ask even for the court order. When it does come up, never ever a problem.

That said, I have had to talk to many exwifes whose ex's tell them the insurance company won't cover the kids....

Contact the Missouri office of the Insurance commissioner and simply ask them. They will set you straight. I know in my state if it's the law, it's the rule not the exception. Any carrier pulling that stuff would be fined and suspended from further sales.

Remember lawyers don't tell the truth, they say what they need to win a given situation. The simple fact she didn't name names should tell you bs.

I mean aren't you living in the "show me" state. Call the station and make em prove it.

[arnguy]

I thought Fox always gave the unbiased news----sort of news you can believe.

[gmveesaert]

I've looked all over the web, this is the only such story I can find. Not even any buzz on the legal sites, either. Just another reason to not watch the local morning news. How disappointing.