Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
This is probably a stupid idea ...
My wife and I both make decent salaries. We believe that either of us could raise our child on a single income if the other passed away. If both of us passed away, our current assets would not provide for our child. In that respect, we don't need what I will call typical term life insurance, but instead only need life insurance that will pay out when we both die (assuming we die within the term). This seems like it would change the risks of the insurance company and should result in a cheaper premium.
Does this product exist? If so what is it called?
If it does not exist, why not?
life-insurance
add a comment |
This is probably a stupid idea ...
My wife and I both make decent salaries. We believe that either of us could raise our child on a single income if the other passed away. If both of us passed away, our current assets would not provide for our child. In that respect, we don't need what I will call typical term life insurance, but instead only need life insurance that will pay out when we both die (assuming we die within the term). This seems like it would change the risks of the insurance company and should result in a cheaper premium.
Does this product exist? If so what is it called?
If it does not exist, why not?
life-insurance
29
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
3
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is probably a stupid idea ...
My wife and I both make decent salaries. We believe that either of us could raise our child on a single income if the other passed away. If both of us passed away, our current assets would not provide for our child. In that respect, we don't need what I will call typical term life insurance, but instead only need life insurance that will pay out when we both die (assuming we die within the term). This seems like it would change the risks of the insurance company and should result in a cheaper premium.
Does this product exist? If so what is it called?
If it does not exist, why not?
life-insurance
This is probably a stupid idea ...
My wife and I both make decent salaries. We believe that either of us could raise our child on a single income if the other passed away. If both of us passed away, our current assets would not provide for our child. In that respect, we don't need what I will call typical term life insurance, but instead only need life insurance that will pay out when we both die (assuming we die within the term). This seems like it would change the risks of the insurance company and should result in a cheaper premium.
Does this product exist? If so what is it called?
If it does not exist, why not?
life-insurance
life-insurance
edited yesterday
StrongBad
asked yesterday
StrongBadStrongBad
601516
601516
29
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
3
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago
add a comment |
29
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
3
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago
29
29
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
3
3
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondtodieinsurance.asp
What is Second-To-Die Insurance
Second-to-die insurance is a type of life insurance on two people (usually married) that provides benefits to the beneficiaries only after the last surviving person on the policy dies. This differs from regular life insurance in that the surviving partner doesn't receive any benefits after the spouse dies. Thus, second-to-die insurance is used for estate planning
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
The product is called second to die as mentioned in Ronjon’s answer or survivorship life as you saw. I think you’ll find that the premiums for 2nd to die aren’t enough cheaper to make it the right choice for you. Especially considering that you would either continue to pay the premium after the first spouse dies or pay a higher initial premium if a rider is available to waive the premiums after the first death.
Probably your best option especially if you are focused on term insurance is to choose an amount that would provide for your dependents and split that amount of term insurance between the two of you. This offers a few benefits. One is that the premium after the first death would be smaller and could be dropped entirely if the insurance needs are covered by savings up to that future date and the proceeds of the first policy. Another is that if you considered the impact of the death of one of you on your ability to reach your education or retirement goals or possibly other goals you’d probably find there was at least some need that the smaller amounts of separate term insurance could cover. Your ability to save for those goals would likely be reduced on the death of one of you.
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
As other's have mentioned in some jurisdictions this type of product is called second to die insurance. Alternatively it is called a Joint Life Second Death (JLSD) policy.
The premium for such a product will typically be smaller than a Single Life policy or a Joint Life First Death (JLFD) policy of the same duration, but it depends on how your insurance company structures the premium.
Typically these types of polices are taken out as Whole of Life (WoL or WL) policies (at least where I am located UL (Universal Life) is not a product sold on the market). Whether or not a term or WoL product is more appropriate for you is something you would need to consider.
You may also want to take out accident insurance or Permanent Disability Insurance (TPD) to mitigate against the situation where one of you survives but can't provide for your children.
You can also take out a policy that pays out twice, once for each life. These types of policy are called Dual Life (typically). They should (in general) be equivalent to a JLFD policy and a JLSD policy added together (though two separate policies may be slightly higher due to having to account for setting up two policies instead of one).
It is also possible to get deferred versions of these polices, which defer the start date of the policy to some point in the future.
Finally, you can get Unit Linked (investment style policies) and With Profits (aggregated investment type policies) which can augment the payout (but carry some investment risk as well).
As with anything potentially this complicated it is worth getting professional financial advice on.
New contributor
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "93"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106483%2flife-insurance-that-covers-only-simultaneous-dual-deaths%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondtodieinsurance.asp
What is Second-To-Die Insurance
Second-to-die insurance is a type of life insurance on two people (usually married) that provides benefits to the beneficiaries only after the last surviving person on the policy dies. This differs from regular life insurance in that the surviving partner doesn't receive any benefits after the spouse dies. Thus, second-to-die insurance is used for estate planning
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondtodieinsurance.asp
What is Second-To-Die Insurance
Second-to-die insurance is a type of life insurance on two people (usually married) that provides benefits to the beneficiaries only after the last surviving person on the policy dies. This differs from regular life insurance in that the surviving partner doesn't receive any benefits after the spouse dies. Thus, second-to-die insurance is used for estate planning
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondtodieinsurance.asp
What is Second-To-Die Insurance
Second-to-die insurance is a type of life insurance on two people (usually married) that provides benefits to the beneficiaries only after the last surviving person on the policy dies. This differs from regular life insurance in that the surviving partner doesn't receive any benefits after the spouse dies. Thus, second-to-die insurance is used for estate planning
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/secondtodieinsurance.asp
What is Second-To-Die Insurance
Second-to-die insurance is a type of life insurance on two people (usually married) that provides benefits to the beneficiaries only after the last surviving person on the policy dies. This differs from regular life insurance in that the surviving partner doesn't receive any benefits after the spouse dies. Thus, second-to-die insurance is used for estate planning
answered yesterday
RonJohnRonJohn
13k42458
13k42458
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
According to this company The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are Universal Life and Whole Life insurance. Term life insurance, being only temporary coverage, doesn’t make sense for this type of coverage (as evidenced by the fact that, at the date of this writing, only one company offers such a product). By the time we retire, and hopefully well before then, we will have enough savings to support our child if we pass away so we are only looking for term insurance and not whole life.
– StrongBad
yesterday
16
16
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
@StrongBad "The two most common types of survivorship life insurance are (UL) and (WL) insurance." Contrary to popular opinion, the phrase "most common" does not mean "only".
– RonJohn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
The product is called second to die as mentioned in Ronjon’s answer or survivorship life as you saw. I think you’ll find that the premiums for 2nd to die aren’t enough cheaper to make it the right choice for you. Especially considering that you would either continue to pay the premium after the first spouse dies or pay a higher initial premium if a rider is available to waive the premiums after the first death.
Probably your best option especially if you are focused on term insurance is to choose an amount that would provide for your dependents and split that amount of term insurance between the two of you. This offers a few benefits. One is that the premium after the first death would be smaller and could be dropped entirely if the insurance needs are covered by savings up to that future date and the proceeds of the first policy. Another is that if you considered the impact of the death of one of you on your ability to reach your education or retirement goals or possibly other goals you’d probably find there was at least some need that the smaller amounts of separate term insurance could cover. Your ability to save for those goals would likely be reduced on the death of one of you.
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The product is called second to die as mentioned in Ronjon’s answer or survivorship life as you saw. I think you’ll find that the premiums for 2nd to die aren’t enough cheaper to make it the right choice for you. Especially considering that you would either continue to pay the premium after the first spouse dies or pay a higher initial premium if a rider is available to waive the premiums after the first death.
Probably your best option especially if you are focused on term insurance is to choose an amount that would provide for your dependents and split that amount of term insurance between the two of you. This offers a few benefits. One is that the premium after the first death would be smaller and could be dropped entirely if the insurance needs are covered by savings up to that future date and the proceeds of the first policy. Another is that if you considered the impact of the death of one of you on your ability to reach your education or retirement goals or possibly other goals you’d probably find there was at least some need that the smaller amounts of separate term insurance could cover. Your ability to save for those goals would likely be reduced on the death of one of you.
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The product is called second to die as mentioned in Ronjon’s answer or survivorship life as you saw. I think you’ll find that the premiums for 2nd to die aren’t enough cheaper to make it the right choice for you. Especially considering that you would either continue to pay the premium after the first spouse dies or pay a higher initial premium if a rider is available to waive the premiums after the first death.
Probably your best option especially if you are focused on term insurance is to choose an amount that would provide for your dependents and split that amount of term insurance between the two of you. This offers a few benefits. One is that the premium after the first death would be smaller and could be dropped entirely if the insurance needs are covered by savings up to that future date and the proceeds of the first policy. Another is that if you considered the impact of the death of one of you on your ability to reach your education or retirement goals or possibly other goals you’d probably find there was at least some need that the smaller amounts of separate term insurance could cover. Your ability to save for those goals would likely be reduced on the death of one of you.
The product is called second to die as mentioned in Ronjon’s answer or survivorship life as you saw. I think you’ll find that the premiums for 2nd to die aren’t enough cheaper to make it the right choice for you. Especially considering that you would either continue to pay the premium after the first spouse dies or pay a higher initial premium if a rider is available to waive the premiums after the first death.
Probably your best option especially if you are focused on term insurance is to choose an amount that would provide for your dependents and split that amount of term insurance between the two of you. This offers a few benefits. One is that the premium after the first death would be smaller and could be dropped entirely if the insurance needs are covered by savings up to that future date and the proceeds of the first policy. Another is that if you considered the impact of the death of one of you on your ability to reach your education or retirement goals or possibly other goals you’d probably find there was at least some need that the smaller amounts of separate term insurance could cover. Your ability to save for those goals would likely be reduced on the death of one of you.
answered 19 hours ago
T. M.T. M.
60518
60518
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
5
5
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
If your plans involve "term life" and "dropping the insurance before the end of the term", you are making a bad plan. Term life almost always has a fixed price per unit time, and your payments early on are way over price, and your payments later on are way cheaper, than they would be. Insurance companies make bank by relying on people dropping a term life policy before it matures.
– Yakk
9 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
@Yakk Do you have an alterantive suggestion? With renewable term life, you keep it until you are no longer in need of it. Since you can't know for sure when that is, the idea is to lock in a low rate so that you can continue to afford it if your situation changes.
– JimmyJames
7 hours ago
1
1
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames Get a fixed term life. Make and execute a savings plan, starting now, to stuff money away for after the term ends, using usual techniques. Do not plan to cancel the term life before it ends. If someone is offering you a renewable term with actually low rates on the renew indefinitely, that is whole life dressed up as a term life. If they aren't, then the renew terms are going to be bad enough to handle the lemon problem and/or have other exclusions that make it less than useful, so you shouldn't plan on resubscribing. In either case, get term life.
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@JimmyJames (Note that a whole life policy could be part of your plan for after the term life ends, but it isn't a replacement for the purpose of term life.)
– Yakk
6 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
@Yakk note that the OP indicates that his household income is well over pay-check to pay-check. Insurance policies provide protection against short-term disasters in exchange for long-term capital loss; so, if for he has a 300k 30yr term policy, and he saves up 300k in the next 5yrs, then dropping his term policy at that point would free up additional revenue to grow his investments faster. At this point his premiums allocation of funds would create capital gains instead resulting in a better retirement fund while still protecting his family's future. So, in this case, it can be a good move.
– Nosajimiki
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
As other's have mentioned in some jurisdictions this type of product is called second to die insurance. Alternatively it is called a Joint Life Second Death (JLSD) policy.
The premium for such a product will typically be smaller than a Single Life policy or a Joint Life First Death (JLFD) policy of the same duration, but it depends on how your insurance company structures the premium.
Typically these types of polices are taken out as Whole of Life (WoL or WL) policies (at least where I am located UL (Universal Life) is not a product sold on the market). Whether or not a term or WoL product is more appropriate for you is something you would need to consider.
You may also want to take out accident insurance or Permanent Disability Insurance (TPD) to mitigate against the situation where one of you survives but can't provide for your children.
You can also take out a policy that pays out twice, once for each life. These types of policy are called Dual Life (typically). They should (in general) be equivalent to a JLFD policy and a JLSD policy added together (though two separate policies may be slightly higher due to having to account for setting up two policies instead of one).
It is also possible to get deferred versions of these polices, which defer the start date of the policy to some point in the future.
Finally, you can get Unit Linked (investment style policies) and With Profits (aggregated investment type policies) which can augment the payout (but carry some investment risk as well).
As with anything potentially this complicated it is worth getting professional financial advice on.
New contributor
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
add a comment |
As other's have mentioned in some jurisdictions this type of product is called second to die insurance. Alternatively it is called a Joint Life Second Death (JLSD) policy.
The premium for such a product will typically be smaller than a Single Life policy or a Joint Life First Death (JLFD) policy of the same duration, but it depends on how your insurance company structures the premium.
Typically these types of polices are taken out as Whole of Life (WoL or WL) policies (at least where I am located UL (Universal Life) is not a product sold on the market). Whether or not a term or WoL product is more appropriate for you is something you would need to consider.
You may also want to take out accident insurance or Permanent Disability Insurance (TPD) to mitigate against the situation where one of you survives but can't provide for your children.
You can also take out a policy that pays out twice, once for each life. These types of policy are called Dual Life (typically). They should (in general) be equivalent to a JLFD policy and a JLSD policy added together (though two separate policies may be slightly higher due to having to account for setting up two policies instead of one).
It is also possible to get deferred versions of these polices, which defer the start date of the policy to some point in the future.
Finally, you can get Unit Linked (investment style policies) and With Profits (aggregated investment type policies) which can augment the payout (but carry some investment risk as well).
As with anything potentially this complicated it is worth getting professional financial advice on.
New contributor
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
add a comment |
As other's have mentioned in some jurisdictions this type of product is called second to die insurance. Alternatively it is called a Joint Life Second Death (JLSD) policy.
The premium for such a product will typically be smaller than a Single Life policy or a Joint Life First Death (JLFD) policy of the same duration, but it depends on how your insurance company structures the premium.
Typically these types of polices are taken out as Whole of Life (WoL or WL) policies (at least where I am located UL (Universal Life) is not a product sold on the market). Whether or not a term or WoL product is more appropriate for you is something you would need to consider.
You may also want to take out accident insurance or Permanent Disability Insurance (TPD) to mitigate against the situation where one of you survives but can't provide for your children.
You can also take out a policy that pays out twice, once for each life. These types of policy are called Dual Life (typically). They should (in general) be equivalent to a JLFD policy and a JLSD policy added together (though two separate policies may be slightly higher due to having to account for setting up two policies instead of one).
It is also possible to get deferred versions of these polices, which defer the start date of the policy to some point in the future.
Finally, you can get Unit Linked (investment style policies) and With Profits (aggregated investment type policies) which can augment the payout (but carry some investment risk as well).
As with anything potentially this complicated it is worth getting professional financial advice on.
New contributor
As other's have mentioned in some jurisdictions this type of product is called second to die insurance. Alternatively it is called a Joint Life Second Death (JLSD) policy.
The premium for such a product will typically be smaller than a Single Life policy or a Joint Life First Death (JLFD) policy of the same duration, but it depends on how your insurance company structures the premium.
Typically these types of polices are taken out as Whole of Life (WoL or WL) policies (at least where I am located UL (Universal Life) is not a product sold on the market). Whether or not a term or WoL product is more appropriate for you is something you would need to consider.
You may also want to take out accident insurance or Permanent Disability Insurance (TPD) to mitigate against the situation where one of you survives but can't provide for your children.
You can also take out a policy that pays out twice, once for each life. These types of policy are called Dual Life (typically). They should (in general) be equivalent to a JLFD policy and a JLSD policy added together (though two separate policies may be slightly higher due to having to account for setting up two policies instead of one).
It is also possible to get deferred versions of these polices, which defer the start date of the policy to some point in the future.
Finally, you can get Unit Linked (investment style policies) and With Profits (aggregated investment type policies) which can augment the payout (but carry some investment risk as well).
As with anything potentially this complicated it is worth getting professional financial advice on.
New contributor
edited 8 hours ago
New contributor
answered 11 hours ago
illustroillustro
1112
1112
New contributor
New contributor
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
1
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
"You can get Unit Linked and With Profits policies" - you can indeed, and insurance companies sell them because they make good profits for the insurance company, but not for the buyer. Rule 1 of buying insurance: never mix insurance and investment!
– alephzero
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
@alephzero it really depends on when you buy them (and what jurisdiction you are in) for that sort of statement to hold. It also depends on the specifics of the policy.
– illustro
10 hours ago
1
1
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
Also insurance companies sell all of their products because they make good profits for the insurance companies! So I don't see that as a particular criticism of Unit Linked or With Profits policies.
– illustro
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106483%2flife-insurance-that-covers-only-simultaneous-dual-deaths%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
29
I would consider the possibility that an event which kills one of you could leave the other one unable to work (e.g. a car accident), or that the surviving spouse could lose their salary for unrelated reasons without passing away (fired, or medical issues make it impossible to work, etc). Ordinary life insurance would help provide a buffer against these scenarios as well.
– Chris Hayes
19 hours ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
9 hours ago
3
@JPhi1618 sure, but the odds of us both dyeing is lower, so it should be cheaper to only pay out if we both die.
– StrongBad
8 hours ago
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
3 hours ago