Convert or Reapply: A Rated Applicant With a Closing Window
Jerome Okafor is 47, divorced, and the sole support of two children, ages 12 and 15. His mortgage balance is $420,000 with 18 years remaining, and his employer provides group term life equal to twice his $75,000 salary. Seven years ago he bought a 10-year level term policy with a $400,000 death benefit and an annual premium of $1,050; it is convertible to permanent coverage until the end of policy year 8. Six months ago he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (well controlled, A1C 6.8) and hypertension. His agent expects a table rating of two to three on any newly underwritten policy. Jerome has $6,000 a year available for life insurance. He wants coverage at least to age 65, prefers premiums that cannot increase, and would like cash value that could help with college costs, though he says the death benefit is the priority. His ex-wife would raise the children if he died.
1. Should Jerome convert the existing term policy, buy new coverage, or both? Explain the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Conversion is the dominant move, and the deadline drives it. Conversion is exercised without new evidence of insurability, so Jerome keeps his original preferred class instead of a table 2–3 rating that could raise the cost of new term by well over half and make new permanent coverage very expensive. The existing policy also expires at the end of year 10, three years from now, which is far short of his need to age 65. The conversion right is a wasting asset with roughly one year left.
Budget is the constraint. At 47, converting the full $400,000 to whole life will likely exceed $6,000 a year, so a partial conversion is realistic - for example, convert $250,000–$300,000 and keep the employer group term for the temporary layer. He should not cancel the group coverage, but he also should not rely on it: it ends at retirement and is not portable.
Newly underwritten coverage is a gap-filler only. If he wants a larger permanent base than the conversion allows, he can apply for additional coverage now while he is still insurable, but he should secure the conversion first so a decline or postponement does not leave him with nothing.
2. Which product design fits his stated priorities within the $6,000 budget?
Read the worked answer
The stated priorities - level death benefit, premiums that cannot increase, and coverage to at least 65 - point to whole life, ideally a limited-pay or blended design. Whole life guarantees the premium and the death benefit, and the cash value is contractual rather than projected. A blended approach (a whole life base plus paid-up additions, or a whole life base with a term rider during the mortgage years) keeps the guarantee while fitting the budget.
Universal life is the alternative, but the fit is worse on his terms. A current-assumption UL is not a guaranteed-premium product; if credited interest falls or charges rise, he must pay more or the policy underfunds. A UL with a no-lapse guarantee delivers a guaranteed death benefit but typically builds little cash value and the guarantee depends on paying the scheduled premium on time.
Term to 65 is the cheapest and the worst fit: it expires exactly when he stops needing income replacement but leaves no cash value, and it ignores the convertible asset he already owns. Recommended structure: convert approximately $250,000–$300,000 to whole life, add a term rider or retain group coverage to cover the mortgage, and keep total outlay at or under $6,000.
3. Jerome asks whether he can borrow the cash value to pay college tuition. What should the agent explain?
Read the worked answer
Policy loans are permitted, but the agent must explain the mechanics and the trade-offs. A loan accrues interest, reduces the net death benefit if it is outstanding at death, and can cause the policy to lapse if unpaid interest plus the loan exceeds the cash value. That directly conflicts with his stated priority: if he dies while the loan is outstanding, his children receive less than the face amount at exactly the moment the coverage matters most. He can repay the loan on a schedule to restore the death benefit.
Tax treatment matters. Loans from a life policy are generally not taxable while the policy remains in force, but withdrawals above basis are taxable, and loans are taxed like withdrawals if the policy lapses or is surrendered. If the policy is funded beyond the seven-pay limit, it becomes a modified endowment contract: loans and withdrawals are taxed last-in-first-out and pre-age-59½ amounts may carry a 10% penalty. Overfunding to chase college money can trigger that.
The structural point: a life policy is not a college savings plan. If education funding is the real goal, a 529 or other dedicated vehicle preserves the death benefit intact. Use cash value only as a secondary source, and illustrate the loan's effect on the death benefit before he signs.