Life insurance on another life, and notification to the insured (hypothetical)

[David.WE.Roberts]

Firstly let me say that this is purely hypothetical.
I have absolutely not killed and disposed of anyone, and especially not
under that new bit of patio by the back door.
Nor do I intend to.

So - if someone was to insure the life of another person, with themselves
as the beneficiary of the policy, would there be a legal requirement or
process whereby the consent of the insured had to be sought?

I assume so, else life insurance could be something like Fantasy Football
- pick your winning team, pay your entry fee then watch the obituaries to
see if you have won anything.

I am of course only considering a policy where no medical examination or
medical history is required.

Just idle speculation.

Cheers

Dave R

[AC]

August West wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>
>> So - if someone was to insure the life of another person, with
>> themselves as the beneficiary of the policy, would there be a legal
>> requirement or process whereby the consent of the insured had to be
>> sought?
>

> No, they need not seek the consent of the insured. However, the policy
> holder must have an "insurable interst" in the life of the subject.
> Employers often insure key workers lives, without telling them.

>
>> I assume so, else life insurance could be something like Fantasy Football
>> - pick your winning team, pay your entry fee then watch the obituaries to
>> see if you have won anything.
>

> No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.
>

Can you use Betfair?

What if David were to offer you odds on my living for the next 20 years?
You'd be betting on life, not death.

Fantastic wheeze if you can.

--
AC

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:02 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>The entity calling itself David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>

>> So - if someone was to insure the life of another person, with
>> themselves as the beneficiary of the policy, would there be a legal
>> requirement or process whereby the consent of the insured had to be
>> sought?
>

>No, they need not seek the consent of the insured. However, the policy
>holder must have an "insurable interst" in the life of the subject.
>Employers often insure key workers lives, without telling them.
>

>> I assume so, else life insurance could be something like Fantasy Football
>> - pick your winning team, pay your entry fee then watch the obituaries to
>> see if you have won anything.
>

>No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.

If you were able to insure the lives of strangers, it would create a
mischievous kind of gaming.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[polygonum]

Look up Tontine - related to what you ask.

--
Rod

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> August West wrote:

>> David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> I assume so, else life insurance could be something like
>>> Fantasy Football - pick your winning team, pay your entry fee
>>> then watch the obituaries to see if you have won anything.
>>
>> No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.
>
> Can you use Betfair?
>
> What if David were to offer you odds on my living for the next
> 20 years? You'd be betting on life, not death.

Interesting idea. One comedian said that life insurance is betting
that you are going to die - and then you hope you lose.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Martin]

On 14/05/2013 21:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:02 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and

>> No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.
>
> If you were able to insure the lives of strangers, it would create a
> mischievous kind of gaming.

Resurrect "Assassination Politics"

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
> news:XnsA1C0D2DE5F2DFs...@130.133.4.11...

I often describe term assurance as a die-to-win policy.
--
Chris R

..

[Sara]

In article <avfbq2...@mid.individual.net>,

When I insured Rog I don't think anyone wrote to tell him.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[David.WE.Roberts]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:02 +0100, August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>

>> So - if someone was to insure the life of another person, with
>> themselves as the beneficiary of the policy, would there be a legal
>> requirement or process whereby the consent of the insured had to be
>> sought?
>

> No, they need not seek the consent of the insured. However, the policy
> holder must have an "insurable interst" in the life of the subject.
> Employers often insure key workers lives, without telling them.
>

>> I assume so, else life insurance could be something like Fantasy
>> Football - pick your winning team, pay your entry fee then watch the
>> obituaries to see if you have won anything.
>

> No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.

Hmmm......suppose I was a dedicated Conservative voter and therefore had a
personal interest in the survival of the PM?

Or a dedicated fan of Sir Cliff Richard and would suffer severe mental and
emotional trauma should I learn of his sad demise?

However insurers are renowned for there willingness to find reasons not to
pay up so I think there is little scope for an assassins charter.

Cheers

Dave R

[Toom Tabard]

You can sell your existing endowment, including life cover, to another individual or an organisation. Many people/companies buy these as investments.
They pay the premium until maturity. They get an early payout if you die.

e.g. http://www.sellingmyendowment.co.uk/Home/Risk

Toom

[GB]

On 14/05/2013 22:05, polygonum wrote:

> Look up Tontine - related to what you ask.

You can buy a reversionary interest, whereby you get property when
somebody else dies but no income in the meantime. I haven't heard of any
reversioners bumping off the life tenants, but it's not beyond the
bounds of possibility.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote

>>
>> Interesting idea. One comedian said that life insurance is
>> betting that you are going to die - and then you hope you lose.
>>
> I often describe term assurance as a die-to-win policy.

Ah, as in pay now, die later.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Simon Finnigan]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> The entity calling itself David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:10:02 +0100, August West wrote:
>>
>>> The entity calling itself David.WE.Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So - if someone was to insure the life of another person, with
>>>> themselves as the beneficiary of the policy, would there be a legal
>>>> requirement or process whereby the consent of the insured had to be
>>>> sought?
>>>
>>> No, they need not seek the consent of the insured. However, the policy
>>> holder must have an "insurable interst" in the life of the subject.
>>> Employers often insure key workers lives, without telling them.
>>>
>>>> I assume so, else life insurance could be something like Fantasy
>>>> Football - pick your winning team, pay your entry fee then watch the
>>>> obituaries to see if you have won anything.
>>>
>>> No, as you have no insurable interest in such strangers.
>>
>> Hmmm......suppose I was a dedicated Conservative voter and therefore had a
>> personal interest in the survival of the PM?
>

> That's not a financial interest, so not an insurable interest.

>
>> Or a dedicated fan of Sir Cliff Richard and would suffer severe mental and
>> emotional trauma should I learn of his sad demise?
>

> Again, not a financial interest, so not an insurable interest.

>
>> However insurers are renowned for there willingness to find reasons not to
>> pay up so I think there is little scope for an assassins charter.
>

> It's not insurers who require an insurable interest; it's the law.


What if you sell CD's of cliffs music? Therefore him passing on would cost
you money - or is there a lower limit to the interest?

[AC]

But, is there anything preventing people on a betting exchange betting
on life, or death? What about the high street betting shops?

It is legal? Is it that different from insurance?

--
AC

[Chris R]

>
>
> "AC" wrote in message news:h%Rkt.38743$ne1....@fx07.fr7...

Yes, it is different from insurance. The purpose of the insurance rules in
this area is to prevent insurance being used as a form of gambling. Legal
gambling is separately regulated and does not fall within these rules.
--
Chris R

[Andy Champ]

On 15/05/2013 21:25, August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> >
>> >What if you sell CD's of cliffs music? Therefore him passing on would
>> >cost you money - or is there a lower limit to the interest?

> It has to be part of direct relationship - you're selling Cds not
> Cliff. He is not supporting you, personally.

Besides which if he dies there will undoubtedly be a spike in sales.

But that's not the point :)

Andy

[Judith]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:55:02 +0100, "David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net>
wrote:

>Firstly let me say that this is purely hypothetical.

I think I have read that at one time people could not insure lives of children
as it was seen as a source of easy money.

Anyone know if this was the case or a made up story?

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:25:01 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
typed:

You still can't insure the lives of children, because their death would not
cause you a financial loss.

There are only two cases where it is possible to insure a life in which you
do not have a pecuniary interest. The first is when you insure your own
life, for the benefit of others. The second is when you insure the life of
your spouse (or civil partner), for the benefit of yourself. In all other
cases, for insurance (of any kind, not just life) to be valid, you must be
able to show that the loss or damage of the thing being insured would cause
you demonstrable financial harm.

http://www.pruadviser.co.uk/content/support/technical_centre/insurable_interest/
sums it all up very well.

[Percy Picacity]

What if the little darling is a successful child actors/portsperon and
you're their full-time manager - or is there some public policy that
one shouldn't profit from one's child?

--

Percy Picacity

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:45:02 +0100, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard

and typed:

>On 2013-05-16 17:55:01 +0000, Mark Goodge said:
>
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:25:01 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:55:02 +0100, "David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Firstly let me say that this is purely hypothetical.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I have read that at one time people could not insure lives of children
>>> as it was seen as a source of easy money.
>>>
>>> Anyone know if this was the case or a made up story?
>>
>> You still can't insure the lives of children, because their death would not
>> cause you a financial loss.
>>
>> There are only two cases where it is possible to insure a life in which you
>> do not have a pecuniary interest. The first is when you insure your own
>> life, for the benefit of others. The second is when you insure the life of
>> your spouse (or civil partner), for the benefit of yourself. In all other
>> cases, for insurance (of any kind, not just life) to be valid, you must be
>> able to show that the loss or damage of the thing being insured would cause
>> you demonstrable financial harm.
>>
>> http://www.pruadviser.co.uk/content/support/technical_centre/insurable_interest/
>>
>> sums it all up very well.
>

>What if the little darling is a successful child actors/portsperon and
>you're their full-time manager - or is there some public policy that
>one shouldn't profit from one's child?

That would be a business relationship, and you can insure a life based on
that. The point is that you can't insure the life of a child (or, for that
matter, a parent) solely because of your relationship with them - there
needs to be a pecuniary interest. And if there is a pecuniary interest, the
fact that you are related is irrelevant anyway.

Here's a thought, though, and one that maybe someone more knowledgable than
me can answer: Suppose my father gives me a large sum of money[1] while he
is still alive, with the intention of avoiding inheritance tax when he
dies. But for that to work, he has to live for at least seven years after
making the gift, otherwise it will be considered taxable for IHT purposes.
So could I then insure his life for that seven year term, so that in the
event of his untimely death the insurance will pay the tax?

[1] I should point out that this is entirely hypothetical, as in real life
my dad is pretty much skint these days.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Mark Goodge" wrote in message
> news:a60dp8h8gdqeogk18...@news.markshouse.net...

> Here's a thought, though, and one that maybe someone more knowledgable
> than
> me can answer: Suppose my father gives me a large sum of money[1] while he
> is still alive, with the intention of avoiding inheritance tax when he
> dies. But for that to work, he has to live for at least seven years after
> making the gift, otherwise it will be considered taxable for IHT purposes.
> So could I then insure his life for that seven year term, so that in the
> event of his untimely death the insurance will pay the tax?

It's quite common to insure against death in the IhT PET period .
--
Chris R

[Stuart Bronstein]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> Here's a thought, though, and one that maybe someone more
> knowledgable than me can answer: Suppose my father gives me a
> large sum of money[1] while he is still alive, with the
> intention of avoiding inheritance tax when he dies. But for that
> to work, he has to live for at least seven years after making
> the gift, otherwise it will be considered taxable for IHT
> purposes. So could I then insure his life for that seven year
> term, so that in the event of his untimely death the insurance
> will pay the tax?

Is there a threshold on gifts that must be reported if within seven
years of death? For example can the father get a term insurance
policy (little or no market value) and give it to the child? And
then the parent can give the child enough money each year to make
premium payments. That's a common approach here in the US, but I
don't know if it works in the UK.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[S]

On May 16, 6:55 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:25:01 +0100, Judith put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 18:55:02 +0100, "David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Firstly let me say that this is purely hypothetical.
>
> >I think I have read  that at one time people could not insure lives of children
> >as it was seen as a source of easy money.
>
> >Anyone know if this was the case or a made up story?
>
> You still can't insure the lives of children, because their death would not
> cause you a financial loss.

You can have whole life insurance or a similar investment which
involves some life insurance for a child. I also remember from my
childhood small life insurance policies which would probably only
cover the cost of the burial.

> There are only two cases where it is possible to insure a life in which you
> do not have a pecuniary interest. The first is when you insure your own
> life, for the benefit of others. The second is when you insure the life of
> your spouse (or civil partner), for the benefit of yourself. In all other
> cases, for insurance (of any kind, not just life) to be valid, you must be
> able to show that the loss or damage of the thing being insured would cause
> you demonstrable financial harm.
>

> http://www.pruadviser.co.uk/content/support/technical_centre/insurabl...