Life Insurers Skimp on Payouts: States

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE][url]http://www.newser.com/story/117390/states-suspect-life-insurers-are-screwing-the-dead.html[/url]

Dozens of states are investigating the possibility that major insurance companies have been less than conscientious about paying out life insurance benefits for their dead customers. The investigations began when 35 states signed up for an auditing firm’s offer to look for unclaimed life insurance benefits that could be seized by states as abandoned property. But investigators discovered that insurers appeared to be ignoring the deaths of some clients—even as they used those same sources to justify cutting off annuity payments to others, the Wall Street Journal explains.

Insurers aren’t legally required to check and see if policyholders are alive, but Florida and California are questioning the legality of insurers who discover a customer’s death and don’t act on the information. And stirring the pot is yielding results: John Hancock last week became the first insurer to settle with 23 states, setting up a system to monitor policies.[/QUOTE]

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!

You're in the business of providing insurance for when "people" die...but you don't have a "system" in place to check to see if they're dead?

Morons.




________




Second take: WTF, dead people? What about personal responsibility, corpses? Pull yourself up by your half decayed tendons and shoulder the responsibility you have to your family and contact you life insurance company via John Edwards psychic show. Just because you pay a company every month does NOT mean that they should have any responsibility. Where's the fun in that? This is America. The wages of sin is death...and the wages of death are around 10k for burial expenses, FYI.

[OCCH]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4012315]Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!

You're in the business of providing insurance for when "people" die...but you don't have a "system" in place to check to see if they're dead?

Morons.




________




Second take: WTF, dead people? What about personal responsibility, corpses? Pull yourself up by your half decayed tendons and shoulder the responsibility you have to your family and contact you life insurance company via John Edwards psychic show. Just because you pay a company every month does NOT mean that they should have any responsibility. Where's the fun in that? This is America. The wages of sin is death...and the wages of death are around 10k for burial expenses, FYI.[/QUOTE]

Well, dems think dead people are still good enough to vote, so why not claim life insurance, too?;)

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=OCCH;4012415]Well, dems think dead people are still good enough to vote, so why not claim life insurance, too?;)[/QUOTE]

Double dippers! :steamin:

:P

[url]

[cr726]

Free market at work again! They do not need any type of regulation.

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=cr726;4014208]Free market at work again! They do not need any type of regulation.[/QUOTE]

If these contracts were broken, we have a court system to ensure they are fulfilled.

Now going forward: Let me ask you, if you're a person looking to buy life insurance, and you read which companies are doing this, will you consider buying a policy from them in the future?

:rolleyes:

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=cr726;4014208]Free market at work again! They do not need any type of regulation.[/QUOTE]

They should also do away with building codes. Contractors will always do the right thing. And if they don't, only a few people will suffer and/or die...and then that company won't have any business. Word.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4012315]Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!

You're in the business of providing insurance for when "people" die...but you don't have a "system" in place to check to see if they're dead?

Morons.




________




Second take: WTF, dead people? What about personal responsibility, corpses? Pull yourself up by your half decayed tendons and shoulder the responsibility you have to your family and contact you life insurance company via John Edwards psychic show. Just because you pay a company every month does NOT mean that they should have any responsibility. Where's the fun in that? This is America. The wages of sin is death...and the wages of death are around 10k for burial expenses, FYI.[/QUOTE]

LMAO- are plumbers responsible to go to a customers house on a daily basis to see if pipes are leaking??? or is the client that's suppose to call when there's a problem??? do auto insurance companies call customers daily to find out if they got into an accident or is the policyholder suppose to call in a claim???

its not up to any insurance company to check out if someone is dead- its' up to a beneficiary to submit a claim...pretty simple even for the simple minded...

if someone submits a claim for death proceeds with proper documentation and the insurance company skips out then there's an issue...but hey- the lib MO- Its Always Someone Else's Fault....maybe obama can use that as his new campaign slogan since hope and change has gone in the sh!tter...

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=cr726;4014208]Free market at work again! They do not need any type of regulation.[/QUOTE]

lol- the insurance industry is not regulated??? then again maybe not to the extent the extreme left wants it regulated...

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=cr726;4014208]Free market at work again! They do not need any type of regulation.[/QUOTE]

Are you daft?

Regulation of what? If the deceased'd beneficiary came to the Insurer and made a claim, the insurer filled it.

What is being claimed is the insurer was not actively monitoring each insured person. And while it would be nice if they did, the responsabillity of informing an insurer that a policy needs filled is on the policy holder/beneficiary, NOT the insurance company.

For example, YOU get in a one-car wreck. You do not call Geico. Later, you complain Geico did not monitor your car, in case of accident, and pay for the damges before you informed them of the accident.

Is Geico at fault, or are you at fault? In your world, this is Geico's fault.:rolleyes:

The benficiary of teh policy needs to inform the insurer that it's time to pay and why. Always has been that way, and likely always will. As it should be.

The ONLY caveat here is if the insurance company found out the insured died, and still did nothing, then nail their asses to the wall with every Law already in place. Thats not a need of regulation, thats a need of Law Enforcement, i.e. prosecution for fraud. Something about everyone should support tbh, break a Law, get prosecuted (unless it's an immigration law of course).

Are you really saying that insurers need to follow up on their policy holders without cause?

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4014401]Are you daft?

Regulation of what? If the deceased'd beneficiary came to the Insurer and made a claim, the insurer filled it.

What is being claimed is the insurer was not actively monitoring each insured person. And while it would be nice if they did, the responsabillity of informing an insurer that a policy needs filled is on the policy holder/beneficiary, NOT the insurance company.

For example, YOU get in a one-car wreck. You do not call Geico. Later, you complain Geico did not monitor your car, in case of accident, and pay for the damges before you informed them of the accident.

Is Geico at fault, or are you at fault? In your world, this is Geico's fault.:rolleyes:

The benficiary of teh policy needs to inform the insurer that it's time to pay and why. Always has been that way, and likely always will. As it should be.

The ONLY caveat here is if the insurance company found out the insured died, and still did nothing, then nail their asses to the wall with every Law already in place. Thats not a need of regulation, thats a need of Law Enforcement, i.e. prosecution for fraud. Something about everyone should support tbh, break a Law, get prosecuted (unless it's an immigration law of course).

Are you really saying that insurers need to follow up on their policy holders without cause?[/QUOTE]

Why let logic get in the way of liberal rantings on the evils of corporations?

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE]John Hancock last week became the first insurer to settle with 23 states, setting up a system to monitor policies.[/QUOTE]

Damn libs :steamin:

[Jungle Shift Jet]

The title is misleading - the word "skimp" implies lower death benefit amounts paid out over technicalities vs. none ("cheat") - for a change there may be some merit to the OP's story.

For example, a lone person, a widow/widower is insured. As long as their premiums are paid when they are due within a grace period the policy is in effect up to the moment they die. They die and if not by a means that would void the policy like suicide their death benefit, whatever the amount, is supposed to go to beneficiary(s)-another person, person(s), or perhaps a charity or some other organization.

To my knowledge/experience usually, a survivor or a legal representative files a claim in a timely manner and everyone who is due a benefit that is alive to get it receives it in full. Many people don't make those arrangements, many die intestate, perhaps they believe someone will always be around to pick up the pieces, like a spouse. If a couple with no kin perishes in the same accident, that other someone isn't around to do it anymore.

So one obvious gap is where that lone someone dies, no one files a claim for whatever reason, a survivor may be alive but incapacitated, beneficiaries may not even know they are beneficiaries to do anything about it etc. The regulated insurer would be aware of an issue if premiums have ceased coming in after some point in time, they may not if a w/d was automatic from some account w/ plenty of funds - the issue is that there is/was no legal requirement for insurers to confirm the policyholder is dead if premiums cease and to incur whatever costs in seeking out the beneficiaries to pay them benefits due. John Hancock settled so this must have been their practice, the question is was it just them, other insurers, or all?

I agree, for an insurer to treat a policy that was in full effect that could not be acted upon just like any other cancelled policy is totally immoral, and the practice s/b illegal if not already. Not a lib issue, so it doesn't make me a lib to think that way. I'm sure the insurance guy(s) here could tell us all about the process.

[MnJetFan]

Naionalize it along with car insurance, home and everything else. The Govt has a remedy for everything except itself. DUMBASSES!

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4014519]I agree, for an insurer to treat a policy that was in full effect that could not be acted upon just like any other cancelled policy is totally immoral, and the practice s/b illegal if not already. Not a lib issue, so it doesn't make me a lib to think that way. I'm sure the insurance guy(s) here could tell us all about the process.[/QUOTE]

regwoihp;oas asp;las;padfv
s
sdfghs
s
hn











Sorry. I went into cardiac arrest and had to use my dopne's epipen.

:P

[cr726]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4014346]If these contracts were broken, we have a court system to ensure they are fulfilled.

Now going forward: Let me ask you, if you're a person looking to buy life insurance, and you read which companies are doing this, will you consider buying a policy from them in the future?

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is nice to forget about the person's who were ignored.

[cr726]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4014401]Are you daft?

Regulation of what? If the deceased'd beneficiary came to the Insurer and made a claim, the insurer filled it.

What is being claimed is the insurer was not actively monitoring each insured person. And while it would be nice if they did, the responsabillity of informing an insurer that a policy needs filled is on the policy holder/beneficiary, NOT the insurance company.

For example, YOU get in a one-car wreck. You do not call Geico. Later, you complain Geico did not monitor your car, in case of accident, and pay for the damges before you informed them of the accident.

Is Geico at fault, or are you at fault? In your world, this is Geico's fault.:rolleyes:

The benficiary of teh policy needs to inform the insurer that it's time to pay and why. Always has been that way, and likely always will. As it should be.

The ONLY caveat here is if the insurance company found out the insured died, and still did nothing, then nail their asses to the wall with every Law already in place. Thats not a need of regulation, thats a need of Law Enforcement, i.e. prosecution for fraud. Something about everyone should support tbh, break a Law, get prosecuted (unless it's an immigration law of course).

Are you really saying that insurers need to follow up on their policy holders without cause?[/QUOTE]

Exploit the families! Oh sh#t, people are asking questions, let's try to get in front of it. Insurance companies relying on and crying about the gov't. Awesome stuff oh bloated one. :yes:

[QUOTE]The investigations began when 35 states signed up for an auditing firm’s offer to look for unclaimed life insurance benefits that could be seized by states as abandoned property. But investigators discovered that insurers appeared to be ignoring the deaths of some clients—even as they used those same sources to justify cutting off annuity payments to others, the Wall Street Journal explains. [/QUOTE]

[cr726]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4014395]lol- the insurance industry is not regulated??? then again maybe not to the extent the extreme left wants it regulated...[/QUOTE]

Hey the draft is going on! What are you doing here? There are tons of wanna be's waiting for your bs. :zzz:

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=cr726;4015152]Hey the draft is going on! What are you doing here? There are tons of wanna be's waiting for your bs. :zzz:[/QUOTE]

lol- not to worry; you're never seen on any of the football forums- at least you know your limitations...

[cr726]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4015244]lol- not to worry; you're never seen on any of the football forums- at least you know your limitations...[/QUOTE]

Sadly you do not. :yes:

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=cr726;4015252]Sadly you do not. :yes:[/QUOTE]

yes- who can compare to your all-knowing knowledge of everything...everyone/anyone you disagree with is arrogant or condescending....:rolleyes:

but once again good to see you stay on topic....:thumbup: