What Is The True Percentage Of Term Policies That Pay Out?

[0b1kanobee]

Does anyone have a study article on the percentage of term life insurance that has paid out EXCLUDING policies which lapse, cancelled, replaced, converted, ect.

Another words, people who purchased term, kept it for the desired length of the initial term but the insured was/is still alive at the end of the term.

I'm trying to find a number/percentage but to me it is mostly skewed due to reasons stated above as to why term didn't pay out.

 

[somarco]

My guess is Mark Rosenthal will have an answer for you. He is a wealth of knowledge on stuff like this . . . and praying mantis . . .

 

[0b1kanobee]

My guess is Mark Rosenthal will have an answer for you. He is a wealth of knowledge on stuff like this . . . and praying mantis . . .

Probably right and if he doesn't know he'll find out. Determined he is!

 

[KenoKat88]

I've always been told 3%, but then again my company specializes in whole life. It would be interesting to know that the statistic.

 

[Larry Tew]

The Penn State study done back in the 80s said that less than 2% of all term policies paid a death claim and that less than 10% (I think) stayed in force for the duration of the initial term period.

 

[0b1kanobee]

I've always been told 3%, but then again my company specializes in whole life. It would be interesting to know that the statistic.

Yes I agree. I would like to be able to tell the client (in some situations) that if they keep that term till the end, here is the percentage that it will pay out ON AVERAGE taking into consideration all age groups and people who have been rated ect.

I'm not looking to boil it down to ages, whether it's a male or female ect.

Just the statistic of in-force terms which have paid excluding those that were replaced, converted, lapsed, ect. (see my original post).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Penn State study done back in the 80s said that less than 2% of all term policies paid a death claim and that less than 10% (I think) stayed in force for the duration of the initial term period.

And while that's a good statistic, it's flawed IMO because it doesn't take into all the ones which weren't in-force.

 

[KenoKat88]

I actually have an appointment tonight that the entire family has term, even on the children. There are health issues that run in the family and I hope she at least gets whole life for the children while they are young and insurable.

 

[Mark]

About 2% and of those most are from accidents and not health related.

 

[Lloydagencies]

2%



William Matos
lloydagencies.wordpress.com
1300 Remington Road, Suite K
Schaumburg, Illinois 60173

 

[0b1kanobee]

I actually have an appointment tonight that the entire family has term, even on the children. There are health issues that run in the family and I hope she at least gets whole life for the children while they are young and insurable.

Well knowing that actual number can help you and it can hurt you. I'm looking at a case where there is a lot of term too and I see a good fit for GUL.

I'm not pro-term or anti-term and same with WL. I think there is a place for everything. I have term myself.

I just can't stand statistics which are extremely flawed. I don't mind slightly flawed. But the main statistic I see on term is flawed.

For instance if you tell a prospect that only 3% or so of term policies pay and you make it clear it's not because the insurance company doesn't want to then you have to overcome the objection of "well I'm gonna pay mine. I'm not going to convert. I'm not gonna replace with something cheaper because I'm getting older. ect. ect."

I am really liking GUL lately. I think it gives good bang for the buck and it's permanent, at least if they don't live past 105 or so.