Life insurance question - Help Part 2?

Question

Life insurance question - Help Part 2?

This is the same question. But I had a typo. Not the book.

Payment in a Straight Life Option settlement option would cease upon the death of the payee (the one being paid - I assume)

Here's the confusing part. No payments are made to the beneficiary. Then who is the payee if not the beneficiary?

And who is the payer - the carrier or the policy owner?

The book also adds - this option would provide the largest income possibkle for the life of the payee.

Again who is this payee, if not the beneficiary?

The book NEVER explains - it just starts using the terms payer and payee out of the blue - as if I already know.

Answer 1

It gets confusing, but life insurance can be set up many different ways. The owner of the policy can be almost anyone or anything (i.e. business, estate, trust). The insured is the person who the insurance company used for underwriting. The payer can be anybody or anything (i.e. business, trust account, estate). If a beneficiary is not listed, then the death proceeds go the owner's estate of the policy (not the insured). The insured and owner can be the same person or entity, and most often usually is the same. Under a single life payout, it gets treated much like an annuity payment. The payee is the person/entity that collects the payments from the policy. The payee does not need to be the owner or the insured. If a single life option is chosen, then payments are made for the duration of the insured's life. The risk is that the insured may die soon, thus no more payments. People can protect themselves a little by picking a period certain option (i.e 10 year certain) where if the insured dies before the 10 years then benefits are still paid out.

Answer 2

I recommend that you try this website where you can compare rates from the best companies: http://INSUREFOREVERYBODY.INFO/index.html?src=2YAqvdxoIJ73



RE :Life insurance question - Help Part 2?

Life insurance question - Help Part 2?



This is the same question. But I had a typo. Not the book.



Payment in a Straight Life Option settlement option would cease upon the death of the payee (the one being paid - I assume)



Here's the confusing part. No payments are made to the beneficiary. Then who is the payee if not the beneficiary?



And who is the payer - the carrier or the policy owner?



The book also adds - this option would provide the largest income possibkle for the life of the payee.



Again who is this payee, if not the beneficiary?



The book NEVER explains - it just starts using the terms payer and payee out of the blue - as if I already know.

Update: This questions I asked are specific.



Assuming the insured is dead and the policy owner was the insured. both dead.



Then who are the payer and the payee?





At no time do beneficiaries get paid. So the payee cannot be a beneficiary even if one were named - and I guess one shouldn't even be named if they are not gettting paid anyway.



What am I missing. And again ... who are the payer and the payee assuming the policy owner and the insured are the same person?

Follow 2 answers

Answer 3

Sounds like the beneficiary is a TRUST, set up to receive the money from the insurance company.



Payer for this, would be the insurance company; payee is the guardian of the beneficiary. This is typical, if there's a spendthrift clause, or the actual beneficiary is a minor, or legally incapacitated.

Answer 4

Nope. The existence insurance money is *no longer* area of the valuables. Upon your FILs loss of life, contemporary a replica of his loss of life certificates to the insurance enterprise, and the beneficiary listed on the coverage will get carry of the money right now. lenders can no longer make claims against a existence insurance insurance. in spite of the fact that, they *can* sue the valuables. And the valuables is often dealt with via the subsequent of kinfolk, except an executor became specifically appointed in a will or different criminal tool. His landlord desires to sue??? For a ineffective guy's hire? Sorry to be so blunt, yet that landlord sounds like a real jerk. Why no longer purely pay up the hire that became owed, after which you will no longer have those concerns putting over your head.