marriage insurance
——————————————————————————–
marriage insurance
Post by openeyes on Oct 14, 2005, 11:43pm
With so many high risk fields in life one can purchase liability insurance, so why not for marriage? A woman files a divorce claim against her husband and insurance pays it off. Perhaps so many claims already get filed no insurance company could make a profit.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by downtowndru on Oct 15, 2005, 12:00am
Oct 14, 2005, 11:43pm, openeyes wrote:With so many high risk fields in life one can purchase liability insurance, so why not for marriage? A woman files a divorce claim against her husband and insurance pays it off. Perhaps so many claims already get filed no insurance company could make a profit.
Hmmm… I’m a business analyst w/ State Farm corporate Agency, I’ll bring it up with leadership and see where it gets… 
Just about any risk is insurable… the problem is you being able to afford the premium for an almost assured devastating loss… high frequency and high severity… lol
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by nastyrobot on Oct 15, 2005, 1:31am
Well there already is insurance, it’s just for women. Marriage doesn’t work out and exhubby pays it for it in the form of CS and alimony. Besides, I’m not sure insurance companies would sign up for such a slam dunk money losing venture.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by JimP on Oct 15, 2005, 7:14am
downtowndru,
What I think you’d want to insure is that the pre-nup will get upheld.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by downtowndru on Oct 15, 2005, 10:24am
Oct 15, 2005, 1:31am, nastyrobot wrote:Well there already is insurance, it’s just for women. Marriage doesn’t work out and exhubby pays it for it in the form of CS and alimony. Besides, I’m not sure insurance companies would sign up for such a slam dunk money losing venture.
Surprisingly, most property & casualty insurers post yearly underwriting losses… (loss from core operations)… it is all made up through investments and generating revenue from unearned premiums (premiums you pay for a year of coverage, or six months, etc, up front before the entire period has endured).
This was sort of the idea behind finite risk insurance where you pay a huge premium up front to cover for a medium frequency, high severity loss exposure. Unfortunately, companies have been using these types of contracts to smooth over earnings results through various investment / experience rebate provisions in the finite risk policies. Ever wonder how some companies always beat earnings by a penny? That’s part of the scam
DTD
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by downtowndru on Oct 15, 2005, 10:26am
Oct 15, 2005, 7:14am, JimP wrote:downtowndru,
What I think you’d want to insure is that the pre-nup will get upheld.
Contract performance can be insured via surety bonding, but that’s not an area I’m extremely familiar with to know if surety underwriters have even contemplated guaranteeing prenup performance… interesting thought though.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by JimP on Oct 15, 2005, 10:52am
niordsixftfour,
You’re right about the fact that the likelihood of a prenup being upheld depends on which state you live in. However, even though I am not a lawyer, I think you’re wrong about not being able to protect your earnings during marriage. What you can’t protect yourself against in a pre-nup is child support.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by sirlancelot on Oct 15, 2005, 11:07am
The best insurance against getting fucked over by a greedy ex-wife is not to get married. I know that’s obvious to the point of being patronizing, but quite simply I don’t see any other way.
Stay single. Stay happy. Stay rich.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by nastyrobot on Oct 15, 2005, 2:22pm
“…a medium frequency, high severity loss exposure.”
I guess the joke I was trying to make was that marriage isn’t low frequency. If it’s going to be high risk, then it needs to be low frequency. If it’s going to be low risk, then it can be a low loss. Marriage seems to break the scale on both ends. It’s like a guarantee(1) to lose lots of money(2). You’re kinda burning the candle at both ends of the wick.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by geoff on Oct 17, 2005, 3:51am
Insurance companies can’t insure someone where there is moral hazard. This is where there is an incentive for an insured to create the conditions for loss so as to collect a settlement.
Married couples could easily stage a divorce, collect on the insurance, and then get back together with both being richer.
How could the insurance company prove that such a situation happened? How can they prove that the emotional connection in the marriage was not broken? With arson on a homeowners policy,there are investigated techniques to determine that the fire was set purposely. And there is no incentive to burn your own house down to collect the insurance since the banks would collect most of the insurance proceeds to pay off their loans. Hence there is very little Moral Hazard in homeowners insurance.
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by openeyes on Oct 17, 2005, 4:03am
Perhaps it could make people hesitant to divorce for fear of claims of fraud
——————————————————————————–
Re: marriage insurance
Post by JimP on Oct 17, 2005, 3:44pm
Moral Hazard exists in every type of insurance out there. Take car insurance for example. In most cases you can’t sell your car for anywhere near what insurance would pay you. I think this would be 100% workable with
A. Relatively high deductible
B. Pre-nup being written by the insurance company
C. Insurance company’s lawyers defending the pre-nup during the divorce.
——————————————————————————–
