The latest nail in the coffin of personal responsibility (and common sense) just got pounded in:
"Unclaimed property probes by states have escalated to now include mid-sized insurance companies ... The cost of these settlements are not insignificant."
This past Spring, for example, MetLifepaid off settled with regulators in 22 of the 58 states, to the tune of $40 million. And for what? Allegedly, they used different methods to track down annuitants than life insurance beneficiaries.
Here's a clue, "insurance regulators:" of course they used different methods, they're different kinds of policies which promise different things.
Presumably, one buys a life insurance policy to help defray funeral costs, pay off a mortgage, help one's progeny through college, whatever. But if it was important enough to motivate one to buy the insurance, doesn't it stand to reason that it's also incumbent upon one to let people know you bought it in the first place?
Sheesh.
There are really two questions here: is it really the insurer's responsibility to track down its dead policyholders? And exactly how are they supposed to do this? As to the first question, do we really want to give insurers access to our every movement? Because that's the only way they can track us. No one has a problem with that?
As to the second, even the government admits its own record-keeping of deceased citizens is damaged goods.
By the way, MetLife didn't pay that $40 million: its policy- and share-holders did. But does anyone really expect government bureauweenies to "get" that?
"Unclaimed property probes by states have escalated to now include mid-sized insurance companies ... The cost of these settlements are not insignificant."
This past Spring, for example, MetLife
Here's a clue, "insurance regulators:" of course they used different methods, they're different kinds of policies which promise different things.
Presumably, one buys a life insurance policy to help defray funeral costs, pay off a mortgage, help one's progeny through college, whatever. But if it was important enough to motivate one to buy the insurance, doesn't it stand to reason that it's also incumbent upon one to let people know you bought it in the first place?
Sheesh.
There are really two questions here: is it really the insurer's responsibility to track down its dead policyholders? And exactly how are they supposed to do this? As to the first question, do we really want to give insurers access to our every movement? Because that's the only way they can track us. No one has a problem with that?
As to the second, even the government admits its own record-keeping of deceased citizens is damaged goods.
By the way, MetLife didn't pay that $40 million: its policy- and share-holders did. But does anyone really expect government bureauweenies to "get" that?
Posts
