The Second-to-Die That the Family Wanted Fast
Three adult siblings, ages 52, 57 and 61, want to buy a $2,000,000 second-to-die (survivorship) policy on their parents, ages 84 and 86, to fund estate taxes on a $9,000,000 estate. The siblings would own the policy, pay the $68,000 annual premium from a joint account, and be the beneficiaries. Both parents are willing to sign consents and do phone interviews, but the father - who has documented mild cognitive impairment and a 2022 cardiac stent - refuses any paramedical exam. One sibling tells the producer: "Just write down that Dad is in good health and skip the exam. The underwriter will never know, and if he dies we're covered anyway because the policy is in force."
1. Analyze whether the arrangement satisfies insurable interest, and explain why the choice of owner matters here.
Read the worked answer
Insurable interest turns on the relationship and on consent, and both must exist at issue:
- Relationship. Adult children are presumed to have an insurable interest in a parent's life (love and affection). Close relatives do not have to prove a pecuniary loss, but the presumption is rebuttable when the amount is grossly disproportionate to any realistic need.
- Consent. A policy on another person requires that person's written consent. Given the documented cognitive impairment, the consent must be genuinely informed - consider having capacity confirmed and witnessed independently. Consent obtained from someone who cannot understand it is a real voidability risk.
- Owner and beneficiary. Here the insureds are not the owners and are not the beneficiaries. That is exactly the ownership pattern that raises stranger-originated-life-insurance concerns if the stated need is thin. The estate-tax purpose is a legitimate business purpose that supports the arrangement, but it should be documented (estate analysis, buy-in from the parents, a trust or ILIT if estate-tax funding is the goal).
Conclusion: the coverage can be legitimate, but the producer should slow the file down, verify capacity, document the need, and consider whether an ILIT should own the policy to keep the $2,000,000 out of the taxable estate.
2. Evaluate the sibling's instruction to state that the father is in good health and to skip the exam. What are the producer's duties and the consequences?
Read the worked answer
The instruction is a request to submit a knowingly false answer, and the producer must refuse.
Producer duties. The producer acts as the carrier's agent for the application, must faithfully record the applicant's answers, must not answer questions for the client, and may not submit an application the producer believes is incomplete or false. Falsifying a health statement is a fraudulent insurance act and exposes the producer to license discipline, civil liability, and potential criminal exposure - the producer's signature on the application makes it his problem, not just the family's.
Consequences if he complies. The misrepresentation is material: the insurer would have rated or declined a father with a recent stent and cognitive impairment. That gives the carrier grounds to rescind within the contestability period and to deny the claim; with demonstrable fraud, the family may face a rescission fight and the policy could be void from inception.
Practical handling. The exam is an underwriting requirement, not a negotiable item - but an APS, attending-physician statement, or telephone interview can often substitute. Explain to the family that disclosing the history gets them a rated or modified policy that actually pays, which is worth more than an unblemished application that pays nothing.
3. Assume the carrier issues the policy. The father dies in month 18. How would the analysis differ if he dies in month 25?
Read the worked answer
Month 18 (inside the contestability period). The insurer may investigate and rescind. To do so it must show (a) the answer was false, (b) it was material - that under its published underwriting rules it would have declined or rated the policy, and (c) the applicant misrepresented rather than merely failed to recall. On these facts the 2022 stent and the cognitive impairment are clearly material. The usual remedy is rescission plus return of premium, not payment of the $2,000,000.
Month 25 (outside the contestability period). The incontestability clause bars the carrier from contesting the policy on the basis of misstatements in the application. The claim is paid even though the health history was concealed. Practical exceptions the client should still understand:
- Nonpayment of premium is always contestable.
- Incontestability does not cure a lack of insurable interest - if the consent was invalid because the father lacked capacity, the contract could still be attacked as void from inception.
- The 2-year window runs from issue, so the premium must actually have been paid throughout.
This is why the family's gamble is a terrible trade: it bets $68,000 a year on surviving the two-year window.