A fundamental purpose of life insurance is to replace an individual’s economic value should they die earlier than anticipated. Considering that the ability to earn an income is one’s greatest financial asset, it is logical to select an amount of life insurance that reflects this lifetime earning potential. Yet this logic is sometimes skewed by a misguided emphasis on reducing costs. Instead of fully insuring one’s economic value, some consumers and financial professionals focus on determining the minimum amount of life insurance needed for the economic survival of beneficiaries.
A simple illustration highlights both the ethical and practical shortcomings of obtaining the least amount of life insurance.
A 35-year-old husband is killed by an intoxicated motorist. The event is devastating to his family, both emotionally and financially. Beyond any criminal prosecution, the family of the deceased will almost certainly pursue a civil action to secure a financial judgment against the drunk driver.
In court, representatives for the family will establish the lifetime economic value of the deceased. This will be an assumption of future lifetime earnings, reflecting the victim’s
The logic and justice of seeking financial compensation equal to the lifetime economic value of the victim should be easy to comprehend. Two follow-up questions, and their
Question 1: Is there any reason the family should consider asking for an amount less than the husband’s full lifetime economic value? For example, if the family already had enough assets to survive, and didn’t “need” a judgment for the full economic value of the deceased, would it be advisable to seek a lower amount, or perhaps nothing at all?
Question 2: If this death occurred in a one-car accident, where the husband lost control of his vehicle due to weather conditions, would the lifetime economic loss be any less than if another party was responsible?
The correct answers, and their
Lifetime Economic Value: The Only Logical Approach
If it is reasonable to pursue legal action to have someone else pay your full economic value in the event of a wrongful death, how can you justify using a different standard for
Making a life insurance decision based only on what is thought to be needed by survivors may appeal to cost-focused consumers, but the premise is wrong. It is impossible to accurately calculate the costs that might result from an untimely death today, and those costs would surely be different if a death occurs two years, five years or twenty years later. Since tomorrow’s financial “needs” will be different than today’s (and might be far greater), any needs-based calculation is flawed the day it is made.
There may be occasions when a household cannot presently afford to fully insure one’s full economic value, but the standard should be a factor in any life insurance discussion. Insuring for full value is the only way to effectively address any financial needs that might result from an untimely death.
Who Determines Lifetime Economic Value?
In a legal action, arriving at your lifetime economic value is a detailed process. You could probably replicate the calculations, but there’s an easier way: Simply ask a life insurance company.
All insurers have underwriting parameters for how much life insurance they will consider offering an individual, and these guidelines roughly reflect lifetime economic value. Here’s the verbiage and amounts from a highly-rated American life insurance company:
The following information reflects general life insurance guidelines equal to the present value of potential future earnings which would be lost at the death of the insured.
30 times income
20 times income
15 times income
10 times income
1 times net worth
1/2 times net worth
case by case
As applicants get older, the declining income multiples reflect shorter time periods; a 51-year-old has 20 less earning years than a 31-year-old counterpart. And as people move into retirement, the criteria
Don’t Under-Estimate Your Value (or What You Can Afford)
Many consumers are surprised when they see an insurance company’s assessment of their lifetime economic value, especially in light of the amount of insurance they actually have. (“You mean to tell me I’m worth $3 million? I only have $250,000!”). And shortly thereafter comes the thought: “That’s a big number. How could I afford to insure my lifetime economic value?”
In reality, securing life insurance equal to lifetime economic value today may be quite doable, especially for younger applicants. Term insurance, graduated premiums, even financing options, can all be used to maximize current life insurance protection. A life insurance professional can not only provide the
Buying as much life insurance as the insurance company will offer is a sound risk management strategy because obtaining
individual life insurance is dependent on one’s health. Insuring for full economic value today means not having to
This newsletter is prepared by an independent third party for distribution by your Representative(s). Material discussed is meant for general illustration and/or informational purposes only and it is not to be construed as tax, legal or investment advice. Although the information has been gathered from sources believed reliable, please note that individual situations can vary, therefore the information should be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice. Links to other sites are for your convenience in locating related information and services. The Representative(s)
*The title of this newsletter should in no way be construed that the strategies/information in these articles
Lifetime Financial Growth is an Agency of The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), New York, NY. Securities products and advisory services offered through Park Avenue Securities LLC (PAS), member FINRA, SIPC. PAS is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Guardian. Lifetime Financial Growth is not an affiliate or subsidiary of PAS or Guardian. #2017-45560 Exp. 8/2019
© Copyright 2017 2017-44561 Exp. 8/2019 P