Life Policy Co-ownership?

3
I’m open to the principle of life insurance policy co-ownership as an alternative to partial/full cancellation.
  • Agree (57%)
  • Disagree (32%)
  • Not sure (12%)

Our latest poll asks you to consider your position on co-ownership of life insurance policies.

This topic stems from our report last week on the launch of the new iExtend proposition, which offers life policy co-ownership as a way to extend the duration of lump sum life insurance policies for eligible lives insured (see: Launch of iExtend).

If the intention of the iExtend offer is to help people keep their life insurance longer – even though they would only receive a lesser proportion of the insured benefit in the event of a claim – is this something you’d be open to considering for your clients, especially when their only other option is cancelling the policy?

The iExtend policy co-ownership offer isn’t intended to be made available to all lump sum policy holders. Rather, it’s designed for that group of lives insured who may have some health challenges and who would otherwise be letting their policies lapse. So, it’s not for everyone and it may not be a conversation you choose to have with your client.

Where are you placed on this topic? Are you open to the idea of policy co-ownership for the reasons outlined here, or is this something you just wouldn’t consider for your clients under any circumstances? Or maybe you need more information before you make up your mind.

In any case, let us know what you think and we’ll report back next week…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

3 COMMENTS

  1. Co-ownership should be considered at the client-partner level, exclude corporations and it shouldn’t begin when “things go wrong” because that is how life companies go under. Who wants a company profiteering from someones death – other than the funeral parlour? A third-party company maintaining a book of sick people spells the end for all concerned – life insurance companies (under) who then pay commissions to advisers (terrible model based upon a fear based sales opportunity, but I digress).

    The flip side of co-ownership in a partner relationship is those that started from the young-and-happy years will force down the volume of premium and that makes for unhappy advisers and insurance company distribution staff. There are also underwriting complexities but life companies will learn ctrl-c and ctrl-v some day.

    But perhaps this could be the start of a product starting to address the customer needs instead of research houses and inflating premiums? This is marketing 101. It’s not a final solution, but Australia has never liked a piss-take so it’s a step in the right direction.

    • I’m sure you are making a point of some kind, but it’s hard to make out while it’s masquerading in such a quagmire.

      • Why is it that the life industry always expects a leg up? It’s second nature. You will work it out, lad.

Comments are closed.