The life of our armies widow's

[Army Guy]

I was shocked to read this in todays news, and it has me scrambling to check my own issurance...

but this is not about me, it is about the spouses that have lost thier life long partners in combat...only to be told that these banks will not cover thier issurance claims, these same banks that have recorded record profits.

I hope that this gets the same coverage as the alleged prisoner debate.

army wifes.

[August1991]

From link above:

However, hours after a reporter questioned Manulife about the issue, the bank suddenly reversed its position and determined it would pay the entirety of the mortgage.

"Manulife has decided that it will make an extra contractual payment of the amount of insurance that would have been payable if there had been no exclusion clause," Manulife spokesman Tom Nunn stated in an e-mail.

There seems to be an easy solution. Pay a higher premium and include death by war as part of the coverage. The financial institution should have advised this but I personally wouldn't hold them responsible. Soldiers in Afghanistan should take note and advise their spouse back home to check their mortgage. I'm sure the premium increase is small.

[Saturn]

There seems to be an easy solution. Pay a higher premium and include death by war as part of the coverage. The financial institution should have advised this but I personally wouldn't hold them responsible. Soldiers in Afghanistan should take note and advise their spouse back home to check their mortgage. I'm sure the premium increase is small.

Many insurance companies will not insure high-risk customers, whether it's health, life, or apparently mortgage insurance. If they did, the premiums would be prohibitively high for most high-risk consumers and trying to sell this type of insurance is not worth their time. Even if they allow you to get the insurance, they will contest it and delay paying out when large amounts are involved. The solution is not that simple. If it were there would be no problem in the first place.

[August1991]

Saturn, re-read the ManuLife quote.

[Charles Anthony]

All of this sounds ridiculous. The military should just beef up their widows' pensions and the soldiers should demand it.

By the way, I thought Canadian soldiers were on a "mission" and not at war.

The financial institution should have advised this but I personally wouldn't hold them responsible.

I would not hold the insurance company responsible either because it is usually spelled out quite clearly in the policy. It is in mine. In fact, it is the first thing that stuck out like a sore thumb.

All parties (policy holders and insurance companies) seem ridiculous over the issue.

How can a person who works for the military not notice the "act of war" clause? I find that a little irresponsible. A person goes to a foreign country to face deadly force and claims not to know their life insurance. I would expect making provisions for your possible death to be high on the list of responsibilities for a soldier. That is just me.

How can an insurance company maintain this "act of war" clause but make exceptions "as a gesture of support for our military" after the fact and insist that they are not going to change their policy?

Making things even more exciting is that now the policies include "act of terrorism" clauses too.

Oh, before any of the socialists try to throw their anti-free-market rants at me:

1) I am not saying I disagree with the insurance companies' right to offer limited choice

2) we do not have a free market

See the first thing I wrote in this post.

----

I just pulled out one of my life insurance policies and the first exceptions on the list are:

"- Insurrection, war or armed conflict or armed aggression or an act or hazard of war or armed conflict or armed agression; or

- Service in the naval, military or air force of any country, combination of countries or international organization at war, whether war be declared or not; or "

This is my anecdote and I would have no excuses.

[guyser]

...only to be told that these banks will not cover thier issurance claims, these same banks that have recorded record profits.

I hope that this gets the same coverage as the alleged prisoner debate.

One more reason in a long list of reasons NOT to have banks sell insurance.Go to an insurance broker instead , afterall , they know better than any bank.

Manulife should reap huge accolades for their philanthropy in this.

Banks, good for your money (sort of) and some other issues , but they SUCK huge when dealing in insurance.

If you have mortgage insurance thru your bank, cancel it now and replace it elsewhere.You are wasting your money.

[White Doors]

Mortgage insurance is a waste of money period. If you insist get term life insurance, not mortgage insurance. The only insurance where the more you pay in the less you get out.

[Charles Anthony]

One more reason in a long list of reasons NOT to have banks sell insurance.Go to an insurance broker instead , afterall ,

Wait a minute.

Can you find ANY insurance policy that does not have an "act of war, etc." exclusion clause?

[Catchme]

All of this sounds ridiculous. The military should just beef up their widows' pensions and the soldiers should demand it.

By the way, I thought Canadian soldiers were on a "mission" and not at war.

The financial institution should have advised this but I personally wouldn't hold them responsible.

I would not hold the insurance company responsible either because it is usually spelled out quite clearly in the policy. It is in mine. In fact, it is the first thing that stuck out like a sore thumb.

All parties (policy holders and insurance companies) seem ridiculous over the issue.

How can a person who works for the military not notice the "act of war" clause? I find that a little irresponsible. A person goes to a foreign country to face deadly force and claims not to know their life insurance. I would expect making provisions for your possible death to be high on the list of responsibilities for a soldier. That is just me.

How can an insurance company maintain this "act of war" clause but make exceptions "as a gesture of support for our military" after the fact and insist that they are not going to change their policy?

Making things even more exciting is that now the policies include "act of terrorism" clauses too.

Oh, before any of the socialists try to throw their anti-free-market rants at me:

1) I am not saying I disagree with the insurance companies' right to offer limited choice

2) we do not have a free market

See the first thing I wrote in this post.

I just pulled out one of my life insurance policies and the first exceptions on the list are:

"- Insurrection, war or armed conflict or armed aggression or an act or hazard of war or armed conflict or armed agression; or

- Service in the naval, military or air force of any country, combination of countries or international organization at war, whether war be declared or not; or "

This is my anecdote and I would have no excuses.

I absolutely agree with everything you put forth here.

And what happened to the 750k some were talking about that the Canadian war widows received?

When I investigated it, I found they get 250k, plus widows pensions and orphans pensions.

Going to war and expecting insurance coverage is like expecting insurance coverage if you commit suicide.

[Army Guy]

All parties (policy holders and insurance companies) seem ridiculous over the issue.

How can a person who works for the military not notice the "act of war" clause? I find that a little irresponsible. A person goes to a foreign country to face deadly force and claims not to know their life insurance.

Sorry for not being a little clearer, it's not life insurance, the military has it's own life insurance that covers war zones, and for about 70 dollars a month your covered for a max of 1/4 mil. most soldiers are required to have it before going on tour, although some do not...

What we are talking about is insurance agains't your mortage, or veh loan etc..you pay an extra fee which entitles you for a pay out of your loan for accidental death. On my loan papers there is no mention of a war zone clause, just accidental death ie car accident etc. My wife is reading through our papers now, and has phoned our insurance company and our bank is covering it, but is going to revise it's contact in the future.

My problem is petawawa is a small town and DND is the primary employer, and everyone knows this including those that are selling these for a "few dollars more you can get accidental death coverage policies"...which is a good thing when in my profession....and when asked if it is good in a war zone, the quit happily say yes...whats the odds a claim will be made....But like my policy the wife had to wait serveral hours for them to ensure we where covered....

I guess my bitch is, it is not being made clear.... up front that soldiers are covered only when not soldiering, or what we can do or not do, for instance i'm i covered here in Canada doing SAR , forest fires, ice stroms etc...Making preps for my death was something high on my list, and alot of those serving are assuming they are covered when they are not, hence why the panick.

[Charles Anthony]

What we are talking about is insurance agains't your mortage, or veh loan etc..you pay an extra fee which entitles you for a pay out of your loan for accidental death. On my loan papers there is no mention of a war zone clause, just accidental death ie car accident etc.

In your case, it seems like you should be safe. My accidental death policy specifically has the "act of war, insurrection, etc." exclusions.

To be fair for the purposes of discussion, the article suggests that the policy in question has a specific exclusion and the insurance company is rightfully off the hook. On the other hand, if the widow's policy is like yours, ArmyGuy, the insurance company is trying to cheat her.

[guyser]

Going to war and expecting insurance coverage is like expecting insurance coverage if you commit suicide.

Umm...no it is not.

Commit suicide, get paid.

Go to war and die, no getting paid

[guyser]

The financial institution should have advised this but I personally wouldn't hold them responsible.

The financial institution is the ONLY one to be held responsible, above and beyond the policyholder.

The law suit would be long, but the policyholder would get paid by the finace people , non-disclosure of a material fact. Really simple.

[guyser]

Can you find ANY insurance policy that does not have an "act of war, etc." exclusion clause?

Actually there are many policies that do not have this exclusion. Anyone and anything is insurable. The exclusion is generally on all basic life policies, but for the rest of them not necessarily

[Charles Anthony]

Anyone and anything is insurable.

That is a fine statement.

The insurance companies just will not insure everyone or anything for much money. That is all.

[guyser]

Anyone and anything is insurable.

That is a fine statement.

The insurance companies just will not insure everyone or anything for much money. That is all.

I am not following...can you explain?

[M.Dancer]

I was shocked to read this in todays news, and it has me scrambling to check my own issurance...

but this is not about me, it is about the spouses that have lost thier life long partners in combat...only to be told that these banks will not cover thier issurance claims, these same banks that have recorded record profits.

I hope that this gets the same coverage as the alleged prisoner debate.

army wifes.

Definately worth cross posting......everywhere and anywhere....these banks shy away from bad publicity like a hippie from water.

[Charles Anthony]

I am not following...can you explain?

Yes.

If I ask an insurance company for $10,000,000 in coverage, are they going to give it to me? No.

If I was willing to pay $10,000,000 a month in premiums, they might consider it... but I am sure they will request a two month minimum before the policy is effective.

[guyser]

Definately worth cross posting......everywhere and anywhere....these banks shy away from bad publicity like a hippie from water.

Lets make this clear , it is NOT the bank who is turning down the widow. It is the insurance company who refused to pay as per the agreement.

It is the bank that sold this, and they should be apporachable for redemption as they failed to discharge their duties properly.

Stay away from banks and insurance. Go elsewhere.

[Charles Anthony]

Stay away from banks and insurance. Go elsewhere.

I fail to understand why. Are you suggesting that banks do not hold our hands the way brokers do?

[guyser]

Stay away from banks and insurance. Go elsewhere.

I fail to understand why. Are you suggesting that banks do not hold our hands the way brokers do?

That is exactly correct. They have neither the training, nor any expertise on what they are pedalling.

And if we do not hold the hands thr right way, we wind up losing everytime. Hell we lose even when we are right. Something to do with deep pockets.

[guyser]

If I ask an insurance company for $10,000,000 in coverage, are they going to give it to me? No.

If I was willing to pay $10,000,000 a month in premiums, they might consider it... but I am sure they will request a two month minimum before the policy is effective.

Why wouldn't they give it to you? If young enough they stand to make a fortune off the premiums and chances are you will outlive the policy usefullness and subsequently cancel it , in which case they win huge.

Sure they will give you the policy. I will give you the policy for that matter. Now because of the financial details of the policy, it will not be as easy as a $100,000 life policy.

The only differences are, they will underwrite quite keenly. You will have to go for medical screening beyond the old pee in a cup. They will want blood, to talk to your Dr etc. They will want to see your financial stability as well.

And they will limit the payout for the first two years.

As for premium on a healthy man, I would suspect it to be in the range of about $10,000 or more per month. Your first and last payment up front is all they will need .

It really is quite that easy, of course barring any health issues or financial ones

[Catchme]

Going to war and expecting insurance coverage is like expecting insurance coverage if you commit suicide.

Umm...no it is not.

Commit suicide, get paid.

Go to war and die, no getting paid

No insurance does not pay out for suicides.

[guyser]

No insurance does not pay out for suicides.

It doesn't ? Since when?

Man, you mean to tell me I could have cashed those cheques that were sent out to the beneficiary as payment for suicide?

[madmax]

I am not here to argue with the experts.

I just want to say that Banks not covering the mortgage of soldiers killed on on behalf of our country, the same country which gives banks protection that allows them to make BILLIONS of Profit, is crap.

They had no problem in taking the extra money. They had no problem when checking the persons place of employment.

And we know that when these questions are put forth to the home purchaser, it is quickly read off a computer screen, do you want insurance? You say.... yes or no.

It's over and done, I just did it last week. They press enter.

Anyone living in a military community, knows that these communities are structured around having a military base. If a bank in a community with military base, can't offer proper service to military personel..

Then shame on them.

I hope this is cleared up for those caught unawares, and I do hope that the military engage the soldiers to check their mortgage insurance, where ever they bank.