They mentioned the moral hazard of selling this insurance. That was the very first thing I thought of. I don’t see how you could sell divorce insurance because it is an intentional act by the insured.
I still don’t think that their “blackout” period would help avoid the moral hazard. And what about the morale hazard? More people might be willing to marry someone that they don’t want to be with just because “Hey, I could get some money out of it”
Insurance is supposed to be for the UNEXPECTED things that occur, not ones that you plan.
can you imagine having THAT discussion with your wife? “Hey honey, not that I think WE’LL ever need this, but just in case… No, there’s not anyone else!!!”
Well to be honest, I don’t think the idea is very solid due to the “moral hazard” issue. In any event, it’s a sad testament to our society that such a thing is even contemplated to the extent of constructing a business model to see if it’s viable.
Well, I can say with absolute certainty that I’m planning to divorce my husband. But maybe that’s a direct result of me NOT PLANNING on him getting another woman pregnant.
as earlier stated, deliberate acts are un-insurable
I like the annuity idea where the longer you’re married the more you can make, but that is not an indemnity
and while I’d love to see a way to make money off this issue (without having to be an attorney) perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate the financial effect of marriage; individuals keep their own assets and liabilities – voluntary as opposed to enforced financial co-operation makes much more sense, and would help eliminate some of the moral and morale hazards of marriage!!
Marriage always seems like such a good idea before it actually happens.
In any case, I definitely believe we will see a work-around regarding the intentional act and/or moral issue. There’s money to be made here, why should just the attorneys make out? I can see some fairly open-minded endorsements too. Like the affair clause, where whichever party gets caught loses half of the payout. Or if one spouse grows 5 pant or dress sizes larger than that of the policy inception date, that party would also lose out.
Mrs. Compman said she wanted something shiny for Christmas that went from 0-200 in less than 5 seconds. I wrapped up the new bathroom scale yesterday and put it under the tree. Boy, won’t she be surprised.
Great ideas! While we’re at it, let’s just declare marriage as an outdated outmoded concept and go with “Civil Union” or better yet, a “Temporary Benificial Merger” Yeah that’s the ticket! We already have to do backround checks, medical history verification, credit reports etc, let’s just take it to the next logical step and make sure we have a proper safety net just in case the merger fails….. (and before the hate mail starts pouring in, I’m not being serious”
For the record, what SafeGuard Guaranty plans to offer IS, in fact, an insurance policy and NOT an investment vehicle. It has already been recognized as an insurance policy in the majority of US state’s DOIs. I’m not sure where the confusion came from but our marketing will reflect that it is indeed legitimate insurance.
Divorce is way too easy in our society. The thought that having insurance somehow makes it easier is nonsense. All a person really has to do is say “nevermind”. We call it “no-fault”. No reason necessary, I changed my mind will suffice.
If this is done the right way, we actually have the potential to make it more difficult to divorce. I kinda like that idea. Build in councelling clauses and waiting periods. If either party wants to undergo councelling, then both parties are obligated to do so before anything is paid out. One year waiting period with mandatory councelling by both parties. If one party refuses, then all legal costs are born by that party. That would sure eliminate some moral hazards. Heck, you could even build in councelling clauses required before the purchase. I’ve always said people should be councelled before they get married, not after.
How about having 2 choices where you can purchase a divorce policy and or you could purchase a marriage (annuity) policy that will pay you back at pre-determined years in your marriage. You could base premiums and payout on different criteria such as; the number of Kids you have had (with the same spouse), kids graduated from High School or college, kids gpa, lack of criminal activity in your immediate family- the list could go on. Just a thought!
You state that deliberate acts are un-insurable…well maybe my husband deliberately slept with a woman and now has a baby with her, but what was deliberate on my part? Can’t I be protected by someone who clearly didn’t have the best of intentions?
(I’m not upset by your thoughts…just enjoying the conversation….even if I had the opportunity to take marriage insurance…I likely wouldn’t. Appreciate your thoughts!)
Insurance is more than just a contract of indemnity. It is also a social vehicle. Think of where society would be without it. Think of what the economy would be without it. Banks would never give loans if there were no insurance. No loans, people would have to pay cash. Few people could pay for large purchases with cash. Our “social standing” would drop considerably. Having said that, if insurance is a social tool… why couldn’t it be used to “help” save marriages? Of course, it wouldn’t save all of them, but any would be good. Product Managers take note… use this for good!
Okay so on bended knee I’ve just confessed my undying love to my true soul mate, my one and only — I’ve placed the ring on her finger, embraced passionately, and THEN I bring up the idea of a divorce policy?
Now I could see a parent buying a policy for one of their children, but even that would be a difficult scenario to work through. Certainly a strange wedding present.
“Congratulations daughter on your happy day! And since I know that marrying the dirty biker will ultimately end divorce, here a gift from my heart.”
Well, I would see divorce insurance like I see a prenup. You marry your soulmate, but who says that over the years they do not change? Then they become a completely different person, not the person you married. Can you control if your spouse desides you leave you for a co worker? My parents just got divorced this year afte being married for 18 years. Needless to say, it is a major financial hardship for both. I am just wondering about the moral and morale hazard and how that would be overcome.
Divorce insuranca is no more a moral hazard risk than car insurance. This is an excuse not to insure by the insurance companies. I have a patent pending for divorce annuity insurance which puts no risk on the insurance company, but teaches young people to save for a divorce occurance whether they marry or not. Divorce insurance will be the best form of savings having more success for young people than their interest at young ages for 401k or 403b programs because the will evaluate divorce as a potential financial problem.
yes,,i hold the copyright to the 1st..divorce savings account,in the united states,,D,S,A,..LET NO MANY SEPERATE WHAT GOD,HAS PUT TOGETHER,,INCLUDING YOUR ASSETS..IF YOU DO ..IT SHOULD BE EQUITABLE..50\50..THATS WHAT A D,S,A,ACCOUNT..WILL DO FOR YOU..GUARANTTED,,THE COURTS WON’T..J.L. BEST..SARASOTA.FL.POSTNETSRQ@AOL.COM..WRITE ME..
I am not sure that having an option of protecting yourself from an unforseen failure in marriage is a Predictible occurence, no more so than people having car insurance and someone decides to fake an accident. Or health insurance whereby we make poor health choices thus resulting in major health issues. The idea which is very logical is that as we know women get the short end of the financial budget in the majority of the divorce cases and are left to balance the household alone as most have opted to take a more supportive role and stay home with the kids or not pursue opportunities, thus reducing their income stream. For the average family this would merely be a bridge that would allow for a smooth transition into the divorce state and protect families. As with any offering there are always those that want to beat the system, so the due diligence from the insurance industry is required. But, I am looking at it from a consumer point of view – its interesting that the statistics show a higher divorce rate the longer someone is married, so to keep the costs lower, I think the payout structure should be given more thought – statistically if 90% of the divorce rates happen after 20 years of marriage, then the insurance company would go bankrupt within those years that those policy’s would have matured.
You’re on the right track, just a little confused about the percentages. In terms of timing, the highest number of divorces per marriage occur in the first 5 years of marriage. While vast majority of divorces occur BEFORE the 20th year of marriage, there is a significant spike between year 20 to 25 (compared to years 15-20) as the kids leave the home and, unfortunately, Mom and Dad realize they don’t really like each other any more.
WHY CAN’T PEOPLE AGREE..TO DISAGREE..THE DOWN FALL,ARE THE ATTY”S,AND THE COURTROOMS..MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE,DIVORCE IS ABOUT MONEY..NO MORALS.TRUST ME ON THE SUNSCREEN..
I have mentioned in an earlier post that I have a patent pending for a business structure for divorce annuity insurance. The business structure allows for employees and employers to fund the insurance plan, but there would be a counseling requirement to explain the insurance to employees. It is a smart business structure and I think it will be a valuble new business structure and business offering in the workplace.
They mentioned the moral hazard of selling this insurance. That was the very first thing I thought of. I don’t see how you could sell divorce insurance because it is an intentional act by the insured.
I still don’t think that their “blackout” period would help avoid the moral hazard. And what about the morale hazard? More people might be willing to marry someone that they don’t want to be with just because “Hey, I could get some money out of it”
Insurance is supposed to be for the UNEXPECTED things that occur, not ones that you plan.
can you imagine having THAT discussion with your wife? “Hey honey, not that I think WE’LL ever need this, but just in case… No, there’s not anyone else!!!”
Well to be honest, I don’t think the idea is very solid due to the “moral hazard” issue. In any event, it’s a sad testament to our society that such a thing is even contemplated to the extent of constructing a business model to see if it’s viable.
What about pre-existing conditions? lol…
Well, I can say with absolute certainty that I’m planning to divorce my husband. But maybe that’s a direct result of me NOT PLANNING on him getting another woman pregnant.
Would insurance cover me for that?
as earlier stated, deliberate acts are un-insurable
I like the annuity idea where the longer you’re married the more you can make, but that is not an indemnity
and while I’d love to see a way to make money off this issue (without having to be an attorney) perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate the financial effect of marriage; individuals keep their own assets and liabilities – voluntary as opposed to enforced financial co-operation makes much more sense, and would help eliminate some of the moral and morale hazards of marriage!!
What about a pre-nup? No ins. needed.
Marriage always seems like such a good idea before it actually happens.
In any case, I definitely believe we will see a work-around regarding the intentional act and/or moral issue. There’s money to be made here, why should just the attorneys make out? I can see some fairly open-minded endorsements too. Like the affair clause, where whichever party gets caught loses half of the payout. Or if one spouse grows 5 pant or dress sizes larger than that of the policy inception date, that party would also lose out.
Goodness, there’s lots of good ideas.
Mrs. Compman said she wanted something shiny for Christmas that went from 0-200 in less than 5 seconds. I wrapped up the new bathroom scale yesterday and put it under the tree. Boy, won’t she be surprised.
Great ideas! While we’re at it, let’s just declare marriage as an outdated outmoded concept and go with “Civil Union” or better yet, a “Temporary Benificial Merger” Yeah that’s the ticket! We already have to do backround checks, medical history verification, credit reports etc, let’s just take it to the next logical step and make sure we have a proper safety net just in case the merger fails….. (and before the hate mail starts pouring in, I’m not being serious”
Marrage is the number one cause of divorce.
Would marrage be listed as a covered peril?
what’s marrage? Is that when you scrape against something?
For the record, what SafeGuard Guaranty plans to offer IS, in fact, an insurance policy and NOT an investment vehicle. It has already been recognized as an insurance policy in the majority of US state’s DOIs. I’m not sure where the confusion came from but our marketing will reflect that it is indeed legitimate insurance.
Where I do not doubt that the product is in fact viable, I argue it’s moral merits.
Just to be sure, it includes the standard governmental action exclusion, such as a divorce decree. I’m ready to sell those policies.
Divorce is way too easy in our society. The thought that having insurance somehow makes it easier is nonsense. All a person really has to do is say “nevermind”. We call it “no-fault”. No reason necessary, I changed my mind will suffice.
If this is done the right way, we actually have the potential to make it more difficult to divorce. I kinda like that idea. Build in councelling clauses and waiting periods. If either party wants to undergo councelling, then both parties are obligated to do so before anything is paid out. One year waiting period with mandatory councelling by both parties. If one party refuses, then all legal costs are born by that party. That would sure eliminate some moral hazards. Heck, you could even build in councelling clauses required before the purchase. I’ve always said people should be councelled before they get married, not after.
How about having 2 choices where you can purchase a divorce policy and or you could purchase a marriage (annuity) policy that will pay you back at pre-determined years in your marriage. You could base premiums and payout on different criteria such as; the number of Kids you have had (with the same spouse), kids graduated from High School or college, kids gpa, lack of criminal activity in your immediate family- the list could go on. Just a thought!
You state that deliberate acts are un-insurable…well maybe my husband deliberately slept with a woman and now has a baby with her, but what was deliberate on my part? Can’t I be protected by someone who clearly didn’t have the best of intentions?
(I’m not upset by your thoughts…just enjoying the conversation….even if I had the opportunity to take marriage insurance…I likely wouldn’t. Appreciate your thoughts!)
Sorry Nebraskan, intentional acts are excluded and tacky.
Insurance is more than just a contract of indemnity. It is also a social vehicle. Think of where society would be without it. Think of what the economy would be without it. Banks would never give loans if there were no insurance. No loans, people would have to pay cash. Few people could pay for large purchases with cash. Our “social standing” would drop considerably. Having said that, if insurance is a social tool… why couldn’t it be used to “help” save marriages? Of course, it wouldn’t save all of them, but any would be good. Product Managers take note… use this for good!
We’re definitely on the same page. Thanks for your uncommon wisdom.
I learned the secret to a good marriage years ago. It only takes two words:
“Yes Dear”.
Okay so on bended knee I’ve just confessed my undying love to my true soul mate, my one and only — I’ve placed the ring on her finger, embraced passionately, and THEN I bring up the idea of a divorce policy?
Now I could see a parent buying a policy for one of their children, but even that would be a difficult scenario to work through. Certainly a strange wedding present.
“Congratulations daughter on your happy day! And since I know that marrying the dirty biker will ultimately end divorce, here a gift from my heart.”
Well, I would see divorce insurance like I see a prenup. You marry your soulmate, but who says that over the years they do not change? Then they become a completely different person, not the person you married. Can you control if your spouse desides you leave you for a co worker? My parents just got divorced this year afte being married for 18 years. Needless to say, it is a major financial hardship for both. I am just wondering about the moral and morale hazard and how that would be overcome.
Divorce insuranca is no more a moral hazard risk than car insurance. This is an excuse not to insure by the insurance companies. I have a patent pending for divorce annuity insurance which puts no risk on the insurance company, but teaches young people to save for a divorce occurance whether they marry or not. Divorce insurance will be the best form of savings having more success for young people than their interest at young ages for 401k or 403b programs because the will evaluate divorce as a potential financial problem.
yes,,i hold the copyright to the 1st..divorce savings account,in the united states,,D,S,A,..LET NO MANY SEPERATE WHAT GOD,HAS PUT TOGETHER,,INCLUDING YOUR ASSETS..IF YOU DO ..IT SHOULD BE EQUITABLE..50\50..THATS WHAT A D,S,A,ACCOUNT..WILL DO FOR YOU..GUARANTTED,,THE COURTS WON’T..J.L. BEST..SARASOTA.FL.POSTNETSRQ@AOL.COM..WRITE ME..
I am not sure that having an option of protecting yourself from an unforseen failure in marriage is a Predictible occurence, no more so than people having car insurance and someone decides to fake an accident. Or health insurance whereby we make poor health choices thus resulting in major health issues. The idea which is very logical is that as we know women get the short end of the financial budget in the majority of the divorce cases and are left to balance the household alone as most have opted to take a more supportive role and stay home with the kids or not pursue opportunities, thus reducing their income stream. For the average family this would merely be a bridge that would allow for a smooth transition into the divorce state and protect families. As with any offering there are always those that want to beat the system, so the due diligence from the insurance industry is required. But, I am looking at it from a consumer point of view – its interesting that the statistics show a higher divorce rate the longer someone is married, so to keep the costs lower, I think the payout structure should be given more thought – statistically if 90% of the divorce rates happen after 20 years of marriage, then the insurance company would go bankrupt within those years that those policy’s would have matured.
You’re on the right track, just a little confused about the percentages. In terms of timing, the highest number of divorces per marriage occur in the first 5 years of marriage. While vast majority of divorces occur BEFORE the 20th year of marriage, there is a significant spike between year 20 to 25 (compared to years 15-20) as the kids leave the home and, unfortunately, Mom and Dad realize they don’t really like each other any more.
WHY CAN’T PEOPLE AGREE..TO DISAGREE..THE DOWN FALL,ARE THE ATTY”S,AND THE COURTROOMS..MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE,DIVORCE IS ABOUT MONEY..NO MORALS.TRUST ME ON THE SUNSCREEN..
I have mentioned in an earlier post that I have a patent pending for a business structure for divorce annuity insurance. The business structure allows for employees and employers to fund the insurance plan, but there would be a counseling requirement to explain the insurance to employees. It is a smart business structure and I think it will be a valuble new business structure and business offering in the workplace.