Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deathsWill my children owe taxes on my life insurance proceeds?Does the life/disability insurance policy on my car apply now that it's paid off?Do laddered term life-insurance strategies give significant savings over getting re-rated with shorter term policies?What are the consequences of cashing out a whole life insurance policy?Life Insurance - How Much is too Much?Should I purchase a whole life insurance policy? (I am close to retirement)Is it acceptable to not have term life insurance in my case?What are tax consequences of reimbursement of premiums from a cancelled life insurance policy held in trust?How to be sure my advisor's insurance recommendations are good for me?
et qui - how do you really understand that kind of phraseology?
Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?
Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?
How do I change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using Notepad++?
What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?
Knife as defense against stray dogs
Passing arguments from one script to another
Can I use USB data pins as power source
How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?
Time travel from stationary position?
Instead of a Universal Basic Income program, why not implement a "Universal Basic Needs" program?
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?
How well should I expect Adam to work?
Credit cards used everywhere in Singapore or Malaysia?
Why does energy conservation give me the wrong answer in this inelastic collision problem?
What is a ^ b and (a & b) << 1?
Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?
Can a druid choose the size of its wild shape beast?
Recruiter wants very extensive technical details about all of my previous work
How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?
New passport but visa is in old (lost) passport
Problem with FindRoot
Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
Will my children owe taxes on my life insurance proceeds?Does the life/disability insurance policy on my car apply now that it's paid off?Do laddered term life-insurance strategies give significant savings over getting re-rated with shorter term policies?What are the consequences of cashing out a whole life insurance policy?Life Insurance - How Much is too Much?Should I purchase a whole life insurance policy? (I am close to retirement)Is it acceptable to not have term life insurance in my case?What are tax consequences of reimbursement of premiums from a cancelled life insurance policy held in trust?How to be sure my advisor's insurance recommendations are good for me?
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
47
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
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
4
@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
2 days ago
2
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
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 2 days ago
StrongBad
asked 2 days ago
StrongBadStrongBad
675516
675516
47
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
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
4
@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
2 days ago
2
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
47
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
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
4
@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
2 days ago
2
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday
47
47
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
4
4
@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
2 days 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
2 days ago
2
2
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
6 Answers
6
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
3
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
2 days ago
21
@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
2 days ago
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The product is called "second to die," as mentioned in RonJohn’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:
- 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.
- If you considered the impact of one spouse's death upon the other's ability to reach education, retirement, or 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.
6
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
2 days ago
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
I'm going to frame challenge and say:
Even though it exists, don't do it
Get a regular 20 year term policy on each of you. There are several things you aren't considering. As others have said, what if one of you survives the car crash but the other is seriously injured and unable to work for a long time? What if one of you is in a car crash with your child and dies but your child survives and has major injuries requiring constant care for months or years afterwards? Even if nothing major like that happens, wouldn't you want to know that your spouse is in very good shape financially in the event of your death? She could pay off the house instantly and have a major stress gone from her life at a time when a lot of other stress has been added.
The $25 a month is worth it.
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
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
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
Now that you know the policy you seek does exist, the best advice I can give you is to shop around a bit. If the amount of total insurance you want upon both of your deaths is X, then you should get quotes for:
- Term policy for X on just your wife.
- Term policy for X on just you.
- Term policy for X/2 on both of you. (Or any other division that makes sense.)
- Term policy for X on second-to-die for both. (It looks like term joint policies do exist, though I suspect not all companies offer them.)
All of the above will accomplish your goal.
My guess is that #3 will be more expensive than either 1 or 2 and will be quickly ruled out. I agree with you that 4 should be cheaper than the other options, and maybe it will be for companies that offer that type of policy. But it's also entirely possible that another company that doesn't offer joint policies has a better price on 1 or 2 than the best joint policy you can find, so obtaining multiple quotes from different companies is key. I believe the price of second-to-die policies will be highly dependent on the price differential between 1 and 2. For example, if one of you is much more likely to die sooner than the other (due to age, health, or occupation), than it makes sense that the second-to-die policy may be pretty close to the same price as that of the healthier individual policy.
Please don't hesitate to report back your findings. It would be interesting to see what the discount on second-to-die policies is in your case.
add a comment |
Personally I believe you both need a policy incase on passes away and the other cannot work due to some sort of disability. The policy I would get would be a term T100 to cover final burial costs and potential probate fees with a term rider to cover living expenses and debt for the child. I would put a second term rider to cover the surviving parent with funds to.cover living expenses until age 80. Now the terms would depend on survivor and child's age. It's amount of insurance would also take into account potential growth if invested conservatively with withdrawals to cover needs. Also inflation factor should be taken into account
Complex yes but that's what your financial advisor is for. He/she gets paid well to figure this out for you.
New contributor
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
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
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
3
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
2 days ago
21
@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
2 days ago
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 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
3
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
2 days ago
21
@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
2 days ago
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 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 2 days ago
RonJohnRonJohn
13.2k42458
13.2k42458
3
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
2 days ago
21
@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
2 days ago
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3
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
2 days ago
21
@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
2 days ago
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 hours ago
3
3
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
21
21
@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
2 days 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
2 days ago
1
1
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn "only one company offers such a product" - so the OP knew that it exists, but if only one company offers it, there obviously isn't much competition.
– Martin Bonner
yesterday
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 hours ago
@RonJohn - We are trying very hard to avoid citation-only answers. Please read How to reference material written by others and especially the line "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own."
– JoeTaxpayer♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The product is called "second to die," as mentioned in RonJohn’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:
- 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.
- If you considered the impact of one spouse's death upon the other's ability to reach education, retirement, or 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.
6
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
2 days ago
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
The product is called "second to die," as mentioned in RonJohn’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:
- 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.
- If you considered the impact of one spouse's death upon the other's ability to reach education, retirement, or 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.
6
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
2 days ago
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
The product is called "second to die," as mentioned in RonJohn’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:
- 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.
- If you considered the impact of one spouse's death upon the other's ability to reach education, retirement, or 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 RonJohn’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:
- 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.
- If you considered the impact of one spouse's death upon the other's ability to reach education, retirement, or 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.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
T. M.T. M.
70429
70429
6
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
2 days ago
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
6
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
2 days ago
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
6
6
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
2 days 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
2 days ago
1
1
@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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
I'm going to frame challenge and say:
Even though it exists, don't do it
Get a regular 20 year term policy on each of you. There are several things you aren't considering. As others have said, what if one of you survives the car crash but the other is seriously injured and unable to work for a long time? What if one of you is in a car crash with your child and dies but your child survives and has major injuries requiring constant care for months or years afterwards? Even if nothing major like that happens, wouldn't you want to know that your spouse is in very good shape financially in the event of your death? She could pay off the house instantly and have a major stress gone from her life at a time when a lot of other stress has been added.
The $25 a month is worth it.
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
add a comment |
I'm going to frame challenge and say:
Even though it exists, don't do it
Get a regular 20 year term policy on each of you. There are several things you aren't considering. As others have said, what if one of you survives the car crash but the other is seriously injured and unable to work for a long time? What if one of you is in a car crash with your child and dies but your child survives and has major injuries requiring constant care for months or years afterwards? Even if nothing major like that happens, wouldn't you want to know that your spouse is in very good shape financially in the event of your death? She could pay off the house instantly and have a major stress gone from her life at a time when a lot of other stress has been added.
The $25 a month is worth it.
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
add a comment |
I'm going to frame challenge and say:
Even though it exists, don't do it
Get a regular 20 year term policy on each of you. There are several things you aren't considering. As others have said, what if one of you survives the car crash but the other is seriously injured and unable to work for a long time? What if one of you is in a car crash with your child and dies but your child survives and has major injuries requiring constant care for months or years afterwards? Even if nothing major like that happens, wouldn't you want to know that your spouse is in very good shape financially in the event of your death? She could pay off the house instantly and have a major stress gone from her life at a time when a lot of other stress has been added.
The $25 a month is worth it.
I'm going to frame challenge and say:
Even though it exists, don't do it
Get a regular 20 year term policy on each of you. There are several things you aren't considering. As others have said, what if one of you survives the car crash but the other is seriously injured and unable to work for a long time? What if one of you is in a car crash with your child and dies but your child survives and has major injuries requiring constant care for months or years afterwards? Even if nothing major like that happens, wouldn't you want to know that your spouse is in very good shape financially in the event of your death? She could pay off the house instantly and have a major stress gone from her life at a time when a lot of other stress has been added.
The $25 a month is worth it.
answered yesterday
KevinKevin
2,3191217
2,3191217
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
add a comment |
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Carrying enough disability insurance to protect against the worse case scenerio of the 3 of us becoming disabled and requiring long term medical care is going to cost significantly more than $25 a month.
– StrongBad
yesterday
3
3
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
@StrongBad that is a completely different question. You were asking about life insurance, not disability insurance.
– Kevin
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Apparently I don't understand your answer as I thought the scenarios you are talking about would be covered under disability insurance.
– StrongBad
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
Your child becoming disabled and requiring full-time care would not be covered by disability insurance on you. You becoming disabled while still needing to care for your child would be covered by disability insurance, but would still be a situation where have a good deal of extra money would be extremely helpful.
– Kevin
yesterday
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
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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 2 days ago
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
illustroillustro
1212
1212
New contributor
New contributor
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
3
3
"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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
add a comment |
Now that you know the policy you seek does exist, the best advice I can give you is to shop around a bit. If the amount of total insurance you want upon both of your deaths is X, then you should get quotes for:
- Term policy for X on just your wife.
- Term policy for X on just you.
- Term policy for X/2 on both of you. (Or any other division that makes sense.)
- Term policy for X on second-to-die for both. (It looks like term joint policies do exist, though I suspect not all companies offer them.)
All of the above will accomplish your goal.
My guess is that #3 will be more expensive than either 1 or 2 and will be quickly ruled out. I agree with you that 4 should be cheaper than the other options, and maybe it will be for companies that offer that type of policy. But it's also entirely possible that another company that doesn't offer joint policies has a better price on 1 or 2 than the best joint policy you can find, so obtaining multiple quotes from different companies is key. I believe the price of second-to-die policies will be highly dependent on the price differential between 1 and 2. For example, if one of you is much more likely to die sooner than the other (due to age, health, or occupation), than it makes sense that the second-to-die policy may be pretty close to the same price as that of the healthier individual policy.
Please don't hesitate to report back your findings. It would be interesting to see what the discount on second-to-die policies is in your case.
add a comment |
Now that you know the policy you seek does exist, the best advice I can give you is to shop around a bit. If the amount of total insurance you want upon both of your deaths is X, then you should get quotes for:
- Term policy for X on just your wife.
- Term policy for X on just you.
- Term policy for X/2 on both of you. (Or any other division that makes sense.)
- Term policy for X on second-to-die for both. (It looks like term joint policies do exist, though I suspect not all companies offer them.)
All of the above will accomplish your goal.
My guess is that #3 will be more expensive than either 1 or 2 and will be quickly ruled out. I agree with you that 4 should be cheaper than the other options, and maybe it will be for companies that offer that type of policy. But it's also entirely possible that another company that doesn't offer joint policies has a better price on 1 or 2 than the best joint policy you can find, so obtaining multiple quotes from different companies is key. I believe the price of second-to-die policies will be highly dependent on the price differential between 1 and 2. For example, if one of you is much more likely to die sooner than the other (due to age, health, or occupation), than it makes sense that the second-to-die policy may be pretty close to the same price as that of the healthier individual policy.
Please don't hesitate to report back your findings. It would be interesting to see what the discount on second-to-die policies is in your case.
add a comment |
Now that you know the policy you seek does exist, the best advice I can give you is to shop around a bit. If the amount of total insurance you want upon both of your deaths is X, then you should get quotes for:
- Term policy for X on just your wife.
- Term policy for X on just you.
- Term policy for X/2 on both of you. (Or any other division that makes sense.)
- Term policy for X on second-to-die for both. (It looks like term joint policies do exist, though I suspect not all companies offer them.)
All of the above will accomplish your goal.
My guess is that #3 will be more expensive than either 1 or 2 and will be quickly ruled out. I agree with you that 4 should be cheaper than the other options, and maybe it will be for companies that offer that type of policy. But it's also entirely possible that another company that doesn't offer joint policies has a better price on 1 or 2 than the best joint policy you can find, so obtaining multiple quotes from different companies is key. I believe the price of second-to-die policies will be highly dependent on the price differential between 1 and 2. For example, if one of you is much more likely to die sooner than the other (due to age, health, or occupation), than it makes sense that the second-to-die policy may be pretty close to the same price as that of the healthier individual policy.
Please don't hesitate to report back your findings. It would be interesting to see what the discount on second-to-die policies is in your case.
Now that you know the policy you seek does exist, the best advice I can give you is to shop around a bit. If the amount of total insurance you want upon both of your deaths is X, then you should get quotes for:
- Term policy for X on just your wife.
- Term policy for X on just you.
- Term policy for X/2 on both of you. (Or any other division that makes sense.)
- Term policy for X on second-to-die for both. (It looks like term joint policies do exist, though I suspect not all companies offer them.)
All of the above will accomplish your goal.
My guess is that #3 will be more expensive than either 1 or 2 and will be quickly ruled out. I agree with you that 4 should be cheaper than the other options, and maybe it will be for companies that offer that type of policy. But it's also entirely possible that another company that doesn't offer joint policies has a better price on 1 or 2 than the best joint policy you can find, so obtaining multiple quotes from different companies is key. I believe the price of second-to-die policies will be highly dependent on the price differential between 1 and 2. For example, if one of you is much more likely to die sooner than the other (due to age, health, or occupation), than it makes sense that the second-to-die policy may be pretty close to the same price as that of the healthier individual policy.
Please don't hesitate to report back your findings. It would be interesting to see what the discount on second-to-die policies is in your case.
answered yesterday
TTTTTT
29.6k45995
29.6k45995
add a comment |
add a comment |
Personally I believe you both need a policy incase on passes away and the other cannot work due to some sort of disability. The policy I would get would be a term T100 to cover final burial costs and potential probate fees with a term rider to cover living expenses and debt for the child. I would put a second term rider to cover the surviving parent with funds to.cover living expenses until age 80. Now the terms would depend on survivor and child's age. It's amount of insurance would also take into account potential growth if invested conservatively with withdrawals to cover needs. Also inflation factor should be taken into account
Complex yes but that's what your financial advisor is for. He/she gets paid well to figure this out for you.
New contributor
add a comment |
Personally I believe you both need a policy incase on passes away and the other cannot work due to some sort of disability. The policy I would get would be a term T100 to cover final burial costs and potential probate fees with a term rider to cover living expenses and debt for the child. I would put a second term rider to cover the surviving parent with funds to.cover living expenses until age 80. Now the terms would depend on survivor and child's age. It's amount of insurance would also take into account potential growth if invested conservatively with withdrawals to cover needs. Also inflation factor should be taken into account
Complex yes but that's what your financial advisor is for. He/she gets paid well to figure this out for you.
New contributor
add a comment |
Personally I believe you both need a policy incase on passes away and the other cannot work due to some sort of disability. The policy I would get would be a term T100 to cover final burial costs and potential probate fees with a term rider to cover living expenses and debt for the child. I would put a second term rider to cover the surviving parent with funds to.cover living expenses until age 80. Now the terms would depend on survivor and child's age. It's amount of insurance would also take into account potential growth if invested conservatively with withdrawals to cover needs. Also inflation factor should be taken into account
Complex yes but that's what your financial advisor is for. He/she gets paid well to figure this out for you.
New contributor
Personally I believe you both need a policy incase on passes away and the other cannot work due to some sort of disability. The policy I would get would be a term T100 to cover final burial costs and potential probate fees with a term rider to cover living expenses and debt for the child. I would put a second term rider to cover the surviving parent with funds to.cover living expenses until age 80. Now the terms would depend on survivor and child's age. It's amount of insurance would also take into account potential growth if invested conservatively with withdrawals to cover needs. Also inflation factor should be taken into account
Complex yes but that's what your financial advisor is for. He/she gets paid well to figure this out for you.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
KenKen
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
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
47
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
2 days ago
Insurance on one person still leads to a payoff if you both die.
– JPhi1618
2 days ago
4
@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
2 days ago
2
@ChrisHayes: crashnotaccident.com
– whatsisname
yesterday
Many things could render the other person unable to work if their spouse dies which you probably don't consider while you both are healthy, handicap, depression et.c.
– mathreadler
yesterday