Insurance - several insurance policy for same purpose

Would it be possible to have more than one insurance policy for the same persons health/life insurance gfrom different insurance companies? --- May be yes. But how far that will be feasible or logical? thanks in advance.

I'm not sure what you would be trying to accomplish with it, not sure it's possible, but it would be overly expensive. A certain portion of the cost of each policy is just the "overhead" expense burden. Let's say it's $100 per POLICY. Notice it's not a percentage but a flat dollar amount, other costs are a percentage, sales commissions etc. But some costs are a fixed cost of doing business.

If you had 10 life policies, each for $100,000 you would be paying an extra $900 over and above what you would pay for one policy for $1,000,000.

As Frank said, it is more of a burden than anything to have multiple policies. The Health insurance would be the main problem. Even tough you pat for each policy, they will not all pay the full amount of the bill. One will be the Primary and cover a set amount of any bills, while others will be secondary and only cover what the Primary does not cover. Good luck trying to get one to be the Primary.

Good luck trying to get one to be the Primary.


Good point!!! My ex father in-law died with his estate owing a massive hospital bill. He had both champus [army] and blue cross [school board] Each supposedly covered 80%, neither would claim primary nor would they agree to each pay 50% As far as I know neither ins co. ever paid :(

I run into multiple health insurance policies all the time and it's usually pretty clear who's primary, secondary, .... Life insurance doesn't make sense, as mentioned, you'd be better off just buying one bigger policy.

On the health ins. I would pay more to one company to have a better plan, just depends on the coverages . I wouldn't tackle having more than one carrier unless you have a good agent on your side . At some point you would probably need someone that knows what they are doing to "nudge" one of the companies a little . There are a few circumstances where a recommendation would be made to have more than one carrier though .

On the life insurance however, there are more good reasons to have multiple policies . A client, for example, may smoke or have medical issues a one carrier might charge more for than another. If you chew tobacco you can still find companies that won't charge tobacco rates lowering the premium signifigantly. This works fine for term, then mix in the proper amount of permenant insurance with with a carrier that has strong financial ratings. Just depends on financial planning, and what amount/proportion is right for you. Again you should be doing this with the help of an agent .

brice said; This works fine for term, then mix in the proper amount of permenant insurance....depends on financial planning

Again, as far as I can see this raises the cost, probably significantl. If the financial planning is done correctly it shouldn't include any whole life as once the "term" is done you should be "self insuring".

Just my opinion, on which I am the world's leading authority.

frank

I'll be happy to debate that on a new thread !! But as relating to this question the only financial plan that can guarantee a specific return is one that knows two variables -- the exact rate of return, and when you will die.

Term insurance is fine for short "term" problems (mortgage, buy sell,while kids are young, etc...), permenant insurance for permenant problems (you will die at some point). Whole life is not necessarily what I was referring to by permenant ins. In the current enviornment I would look at universal life w/ death benefit guarantees, properly funded (with an "A" rated carrier by S&P). Properly funded, strong financial institution = decent rate of return or tax free benefit if you die. There is an amount of permenant ins. that should be owned. Later in life you have the option of withdrawl, or death benefit.

For every 10 years of term you buy the rate nearly doubles. On thirty year term you are at 80% the price of UL in most cases. Properly funded UL policies will breakeven in 15-20 yrs with a strong company ( some in 10 ) . It is easy to sell term ins. to folks w/ that train of thought, but generally is not the right thing to do. If you purchase term w/ a repayment option when you don't die, the rate more than doubles ?? You could have done the same thing w/ permenant ins & got your money back, if interest rates continue to rise you may want to keep to money there. 10-15 yr surrender w/ many policies these days.

A simple scenario would be :

A family buying their first home, having a child w/ possibility of another coming. They finance a 30 yr note .

I would recommend blending term w/ perm for several reasons:

Permenant:
they may refinance,
they will be outside of surrender charges less than halfway through the note,
if they become ill,disabled,unlucky, etc... they are guranteed a death benefit or return of investment,

Term:
cheap,
conversion options to permenant ins.,
carry bulk of income replacement for option to invest balance

This is a short, easy scenario that I could list more detailed reasons, or give an exact example. Point is you have to buy options, and understand why, what & who they are. There is a huge difference in gamble & guarantees !!!

We are alike -- I am the worlds leading authority on my opinion also !! :D

New mortgages can be covered with a simple term from mortgage protecton brokers. Good thing with these they can return your premiums at the end of the term if you elect this rider.

Just my 2 cents on that.