No, don't need the cover.Do you need such cover?
Do you still have a mortgage that requires such cover, or dependents who need to be catered for?
Many people later in life don't really need life cover.
The point of life cover is to clear a mortgage or provide for dependents. You're insuring your life for those situations. You don't get any benefit from such a policy since in order for it to pay out you have to die!I'm trying to understand if in practice it works out better to take out a new policy with a medical and take my chances with my medical report. If I were to continue paying my current premiums while I will have Life Cover, it doesn't bring any benefit in the future as the company will try to protect themselves and rightly so.
In the other thread it seems like you cannot be convinced that you really need to insure your property. The mind boggles to be honest.By the way, I'm also the person considering ditching house insurance, but I'm really trying to see what I get with it, do I claim against my own policy or if at a loss as a 3rd party can I claim against another person's insurer or the other person for that matter.
My cover is not a mortgage protection policy, Life Cover, but I did have it assigned to my mortgage. It still has the full value of when I originally took it out.The point of life cover is to clear a mortgage or provide for dependents. You're insuring your life for those situations. You don't get any benefit from such a policy since in order for it to pay out you have to die!
In the other thread it seems like you cannot be convinced that you really need to insure your property. The mind boggles to be honest.
In theory yes that's the ideal life but not always the way it goes, people lose jobs/get sick/don't manage to increase their wealth/have children that will be dependant or semi dependant adults. An old payout above and beyond reducing can be very handy in some cases but unfortunately most of the likely pitfalls to the perfect life are unknown to people when they are taking out policies so erring on the side of a bit of caution can be a good idea too when extra cost is not substantial.Most life cover plans should be taken out on a reducing term basis. When you are younger, you have much more expenses; high debt, low wealth, child care. As you get older, you children become independent, your debt reduces/ is paid off, your wealth increases, your working life reduces so there is less lost income if you die. What do you need life cover for? You can self insure.
Thank you, I hadn't realised that you cannot be refused, good point.The convertible option allows you extend the term of the life cover without the need for a medical examination.
The cost of the cover will be based on your age only.
It will be much higher than the current premium but you cannot be refused cover because of any medical condition
Hi StevenI don't believe in convertible term insurance. It really only has a purpose of sick people being able to take out cover knowing that they won't live to the end of the extended term and give their estate a financial boost. Otherwise, you shouldn't need it.
Most life cover plans should be taken out on a reducing term basis. When you are younger, you have much more expenses; high debt, low wealth, child care. As you get older, you children become independent, your debt reduces/ is paid off, your wealth increases, your working life reduces so there is less lost income if you die. What do you need life cover for? You can self insure.
If you convert the policy, you get the rates at the date of the conversion based on your age. The only difference is there is no medical. Depending on the insurer used, there may be a cheaper provider but there may not.
Steven
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
Cover the cost of some adverse event yourself from you own savings. E.g. don't take take contents insurance because if your telly gets nicked you'll just buy a replacement yourself.I don't understand what you mean by: 'You can self insure', could you elaborate.
I was guessing that insurance companies would be suspicious of giving a new policy where house insurance has lapsed. I experienced this with van insurance, where I had no use for a van for about a year, but decided to keep the van and declare it off-road, which it was, and inform my insurer of this. However when I did go to re-start the policy; they and other insurers were very suspicious of this, despite me informing my own insurer in advance and having everything official. I ended up paying a few hundred euro more the first year of renewal, although it did drop back to normal on the second renewal. I assumed they thought I was driving around without insurance and was a risky customer, despite having vehicles insurers for years and years prior.As said in above post the cost for a new policy for an applicant with no issues will be the same as the cost of you converting with no medical questions so level playing field with new customer, you will both be charged on your age/amount/term, no extra cost just because you are using a convertible option.
I had not realised when I answered initially that you were the same poster with the house insurance querybut anyways it's not always that easy either to insure a house that has not been insured without some extremely good reason/explanation that will satisfy the insurance company. When an incident arose with a relative's house his wife discovered her husband had let the house insurance lapse several years earlier (he had already owned the house when they married so she wasn't involved in any of the utilities obviously in previous years), well anyway his previous insurer would not insure him and the local broker could not get them a policy either. I had a few insurances through a broker for years and through that relationship I was able to get them a policy luckily, it had several exemptions on it for first few years but is normal now.
Back to the life insurance though, if you don't need the policy at all for any financial reason then cancel it. However if your intention is to just try remove the convertible option to decrease the payments then I'm not sure that will work, the policy is most likely as it is and any change to it probably requires you to either take out a brand new basic policy or use the convertible option now to convert to basic policy. Neither are likely to be cheaper than existing so it's probably keep paying until it expires or just cancel whole thing.
There's always exceptions to the rule. If you have children that will always be dependent and don't build up wealth, you are better off with a guaranteed whole of life policy than a convertible term, which can very well expire while you are still alive and it can't be converted forever.In theory yes that's the ideal life but not always the way it goes, people lose jobs/get sick/don't manage to increase their wealth/have children that will be dependant or semi dependant adults. An old payout above and beyond reducing can be very handy in some cases but unfortunately most of the likely pitfalls to the perfect life are unknown to people when they are taking out policies so erring on the side of a bit of caution can be a good idea too when extra cost is not substantial.
You carry the risk yourself. Like when you go to buy a new fridge and they try to sell you insurance. You refuse because if the fridge breaks, you can afford the cost of buying a new one (unlike the cost of rebuilding your house from scratch on that other thread you have!). If you build up enough wealth and your family can continue to have a good lifestyle on these assets you have accumulated, you don't need cover to replace the lost income they will experience from your death.I don't understand what you mean by: 'You can self insure', could you elaborate.
Thanks
Thanks, that what I thought.Cover the cost of some adverse event yourself from you own savings. E.g. don't take take contents insurance because if your telly gets nicked you'll just buy a replacement yourself.
Yes, I see your point on dependents and it re-inforces, what I Monbrieta said, whereas I was anticipating what I might do in future when I took out the policy, deciding on what your actual requirements are is probably better. My policy was very go value, so I'm not really kicking myself, but I think with hindsight I would have taken reducing cover as you suggested earlier.There's always exceptions to the rule. If you have children that will always be dependent and don't build up wealth, you are better off with a guaranteed whole of life policy than a convertible term, which can very well expire while you are still alive and it can't be converted forever.
You carry the risk yourself. Like when you go to buy a new fridge and they try to sell you insurance. You refuse because if the fridge breaks, you can afford the cost of buying a new one (unlike the cost of rebuilding your house from scratch on that other thread you have!). If you build up enough wealth and your family can continue to have a good lifestyle on these assets you have accumulated, you don't need cover to replace the lost income they will experience from your death.
HiI felt I should challenge some of the views above. I have always been a strong believer in life assurance and convertible is the preferred choice for younger people in order to get decent cover for protection for their requirements as these arise. Reducing cover is useless, unless it’s all that is affordable (especially for first time buyers) at the outset because as the chance of death increases the cover levels are dropping, and you are still paying the original monthly premium. There is a lack of understanding in this country what maintaining wealth means and life cover is a critical part of that planning
For example a colleague in another jurisdiction regularly sells life cover with cover 10 million as a sum assured and many times higher than this.
It is also a great protector of estates when it comes to inheritance tax
Regrettably I have seen the benefit of life cover too often in my years but one thing is clear I never had enough as there is no such thing when it’s need arises
For the cost and the options it gives I would always recommend convertible term cover given the choices it gives later on
Life assurance and its benefits is and continues to be misunderstood except for those who benefitted from it
Those are families and individuals who benefitted from it, sometimes for generations to come
just my alternate view to above Pádraic
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?