Dead peasants insurance....

[imported_elp6n]

There is a reason I can't take out an fire insurance policy on your house, because I would have an interest in your house burning down

Not exactly.
You cannot take a fire insurance policy out on my house because you dont have an interest. You have to have a legal interest in it first, then insure it. Burning it down isn't an interest. Loaning me money for it is an interest.

I can understand why people dont appreciate a life policy being taken out on them, but it's currently a legal practice. The employer has that technical interest in an employee. Under the eye of the law its loss of an asset when an employee does. It's all a matter of technicalities.

They pay the premiums, the employee isn't out anything.
If the employee wants their chosen beneficiaries to 'profit' from his/her death, they need to buy their own policy, pay the premiums, and name their own beneficiaries.

[R13]

Not exactly.
You cannot take a fire insurance policy out on my house because you dont have an interest. You have to have a legal interest in it first, then insure it. Burning it down isn't an interest. Loaning me money for it is an interest.

I can understand why people dont appreciate a life policy being taken out on them, but it's currently a legal practice. The employer has that technical interest in an employee. Under the eye of the law its loss of an asset when an employee does. It's all a matter of technicalities.

They pay the premiums, the employee isn't out anything.
If the employee wants their chosen beneficiaries to 'profit' from his/her death, they need to buy their own policy, pay the premiums, and name their own beneficiaries.

I would have interest in your house burning down, I didn't say that I did burn it down, but it burning down would profit me. It burning down would be in my interest, it's a bet, but I would benefit if your house burnt down.

People aren't half as upset if they were told about it, this practice has caught lawsuits from the IRS to the families of the person. Of course they can do that, this isn't the point. The point is that companies have taken out policies on their employees, without their knowledge and profiting(tax free) on their deaths. The whole idea is so f'ed it isn't even funny. You're worth more dead to them than alive.

[imported_elp6n]

I would have interest in your house burning down, I didn't say that I did burn it down, but it burning down would profit me. It burning down would be in my interest, it's a bet, but I would benefit if your house burnt down.

Just to clarify legal interest in property:
You would have no interest in my house unless you owned the mortgage on it or owned the house. That's why you cannot get a policy on it - not because a potential loss could financially benefit you. An insurance carrier will not and cannot give you a policy to cover property you have no legal interest to. The lienholder, if any, gets paid first in the event of a loss. Policy owner gets paid second, if there's anything left after paying the lienholder. You, as random guy with no existing legal interest, cannot be named to the policy. Even if you're the renter to a house that burns down you have no legal interest in that home's policy and you couldn't have taken a policy out on the structure.

[R13]

Just to clarify legal interest in property:
You would have no interest in my house unless you owned the mortgage on it or owned the house. That's why you cannot get a policy on it - not because a potential loss could financially benefit you. An insurance carrier will not and cannot give you a policy to cover property you have no legal interest to. The lienholder, if any, gets paid first in the event of a loss. Policy owner gets paid second, if there's anything left after paying the lienholder. You, as random guy with no existing legal interest, cannot be named to the policy. Even if you're the renter to a house that burns down you have no legal interest in that home's policy and you couldn't have taken a policy out on the structure.

What if I used to own the house, now you do, but I still have the insurance on the house? Because in a lot of these cases, the employee no longer works for the employer, but did at one time...so by using what you said(which is right), would that company still have interest in that employee? I know what you're saying is right, my point is that these companies shouldn't be allowed to take out a policy like I don't on your house.

[imported_elp6n]

What if I used to own the house, now you do, but I still have the insurance on the house? Because in a lot of these cases, the employee no longer works for the employer, but did at one time...so by using what you said(which is right), would that company still have interest in that employee? I know what you're saying is right, my point is that these companies shouldn't be allowed to take out a policy like I don't on your house.

right - you cant keep a policy on a house you no longer own. Interest is transferred at closing. This is a P&C Policy, regarding property. Life and health is not exactly the same (hence the two licenses required).

Life insurance carriers do not and cannot change beneficiaries unless they are explicity told to by the policy owner. Some states have a few laws protecting folks but those apply to divorce, and not employment.

[imported_elp6n]

Another example: in some states (VA excluded) if a couple divorces and forgets to change their life policy beneficiaries, the ex spouse still collects the payout at death, even though they're no longer married and have no interest in each other (no pun intended).

[Counts]

While I think it is a bit morbid for an Employeer to have life insurance of some of its workers I can see how it would make since. For skilled employees that the company has a good deal of money tied up in training and such where a death could cause a problem (Sort of the same thing with Employeers that force workers to sign noncompeat clauses which IMHO is about 100X worse than the incurance policy deal)

As far as walmart goes I can't shake the feeling that they are taking the policys out on there 80 year old door greeters LOL

[1inStripes]

You're worth more dead to them than alive.

Know, for most businesses that would be able to afford the premiums, their probably not worth more dead to them than alive. Once you figure in costs for training, health insurance, and etc. if they are taking out a policy of 81k, its probably just a nice recovery to replacing the employee.