To hate the comment about "why dont you have life insurance"?

[partinor]

Yes if a partner dies when the family rely on their income, there will be a major impact on the finances of the household. And yes, life insurance would solve at least that impact.
BUT not everyone can get life insurance that covers everything. A LOT of people are born as children with illnesses that can have an impact on life expectancy, and so these will often not be covered by life insurance. With some conditions, it may be that you can not get any life insurance. Or the costs may be too high.
And when I was young and took out life insurance policies routinely excluded causes of death such as suicide or risky behaviour.
But easier to just blame the individuals.

@Craft1095

EXACTLY! If you've read a few pages back I commented the exact same thing. It shouldn't be relied on yet some people do. Granted some people have no choice If they can't get life cover but aside from those it's lazy to rely on work benefits as often they're not all that good once you get to the nitty gritty. As I said before DIS is totally separate to any death benefit related to a work place pension as people sometimes get those confused too.

No it is not nothing. My pension provider pay a lump sum if you die before normal retirement age if you retired due to ill health. The amount is a lot if it happens shortly after and then decreases gradually the nearer you get to the normal retirement age.

Oh ffs!!!!! That's got nothing to do with death in service. That's your pension, which is a different thing. We are talking about people who are relying purely on DIS cover as their only form of protection, because they don't realise they might not get it.

So I'll say it again for the hard of reading. Life insurance pays out if you die. DIS pays out if you die and are still employed at the time of death. But if you get ill, and are off work for ages, eventually your employer will let you go. Then you have no DIS cover, and you are still soon going to die.Your loved ones will get nothing ....IF DIS IS ALL YOU HAVE TO PROTECT YOU.

All these people saying others are idiots if you don't have it, what on earth do you suggest for those of us who've been rejected even by specialist brokers??

No one is saying that. They are saying people who need it, and could easily get it, and don't have it, because they think they can't possibly die young because that only happens to other people, or because they have DIS with their employer, are idiots.

If you don't need it, or can't get it, then they are valid reasons for not having it.

If you rely on that as your only life insurance, what happens if you die 3 years after your cancer diagnosis, not having been into work for 2 and a half years? You won't be employed then, you will have been let go long since. You'll get nothing.

If you work for a big multi national the chances are that you would have been moved on to ill health retirement and would get getting an income of a percentage of your salary. You would still technically be an employee of the company although you would be paid through their insurance. When you die your family would then get both the DIS and your pension contributions as a lump tax free sum. Some companies will also provide you with a lifetime pension for you and your dependent children until they reach 18.

Oh ffs!!!!! That's got nothing to do with death in service. That's your pension, which is a different thing.

It is sometimes related to the pension! In my case the "death in service" is paid by the pension provider and is certainly related to the pension. It is still defined as "death in service" if you have been off sick for up to a year even if you haven't been off work. After a year, if it is decided that you won’t work again and are terminally ill you will still receive a lump sum which would still be "death in service." It may not be called death in service if it occurs a couple of years after you have retired due to ill health (so three years after going off sick) but you still get a lump sum and it is also paid by the pension provider so it is pretty much the same thing.
I totally agree that people needed to check what they would be entitled to from their employer but your argument that no one can rely on their employer benefits is incorrect. Some people can and it isn’t an insignficant proportion of the population as it will apply to public sector workers who pay into a pension (NHS, teachers etc) and those who work in universities.

I appreciate (from reading your posts) that you wouldn't be able cover mortgage payments and cost of living if your DH died and you only had protection linked to employment but for others, including me it would be enough. We aren't all SAHM and we don't all have large mortgages

Butting out now because it's getting personal. I'm not a SAHM nor do I have a particularly large mortgage.

Sureky the point coming out of the thread is that for most people (not just SAHMs and those with a large mortgage ) its something they need to consider. If they have adequate provision elsewhere (and clearly our views of adequate are different) or they cant get it, then that's different.

even if you haven't been off work even if you have been off work

Butting out now because it's getting personal. I'm not a SAHM nor do I have a particularly large mortgage.

I didn't mean that you are necessarily a SAHM or have a particularly large mortgage but you clearly feel that you can't earn enough to support your children and pay the mortgage if your husband died. That isn't the case for everyone with a mortgage or children.

Sureky the point coming out of the thread is that for most people (not just SAHMs and those with a large mortgage hmm) its something they need to consider.

Of course they should consider what they have got and decide whether they would be able to cope financially. You seem to assume that everyone who doesn't have life insurance hasn't done that and that only you have looked into it.

If they have adequate provision elsewhere (and clearly our views of adequate are different) or they cant get it, then that's different.

That is because you underestimate the provision from some employers and you overestimate how much some people would need.

Sorry but I'm another one who doesn't understand people not having it? Isn't it a necessity for mortgages?

Totally understand that it's pretty insensitive to exclaim this out loud and after the death.

Serious question if anyone know the answer:

I've seen a few pps now where people have been refused life insurance because of past suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts. Now most policies will not pay out for death by suicide so why would they refuse to give someone a policy because of something that they already exclude??

Sorry but I'm another one who doesn't understand people not having it? Isn't it a necessity for mortgages?

No it isn't necessity. Some people might choose to take it out but it isn't usually compulsory.

Serious question if anyone know the answer:

I've seen a few pps now where people have been refused life insurance because of past suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts. Now most policies will not pay out for death by suicide so why would they refuse to give someone a policy because of something that they already exclude??

Because most policies only exclude suicide in year 1, then they cover it.

And because in some cases, it's hard to know if they committed suicide or not. Someone goes under a train, did they jump or trip or lose their balance? The insurers would have to prove it was suicide if they wanted to deny the claim in year 1, and they might not be able to.

What if they drive into a tree? Might have been suicide, but no one can prove it. So insurers just don't want the hassle, thus turning away the risk.

Totally understand that it's pretty insensitive to exclaim this out loud and after the death.

Not if the widow(er) is bleating on about having no money to pay their mortgage or raise their kids. It then becomes a fair question.