You are not the father.

[goillini52]

If taking a you tube your there are many videos about men finding out they are not the childs father per a DNA test.

You are not the father.

 

[Cornelius]

This is a bad one.

https://youtube.com/shorts/2n7uoJIcBao?si=Mg5ETyQNOMRPczLI

 

[vic120]

 

[LilyBrown]

Interesting decision. I wanted to find out how you came in mind with it?

 

[PrivClientSG]

If taking a you tube your there are many videos about men finding out they are not the childs father per a DNA test.

So what happens if the birth mother has a life policy on the man and the carrier finds out he isn't the father with no insurable interest? The policy is beyond the contestability period.

You are not the father.

First, insurable interest is not always absolute, cut and dry, or whatever you want to call it, when it comes to whether it existed at time of application AND issue. People say time of issue, time of issue, etc. -- and that is not always the case. In some states, and in some contracts, insurable issue is time of application and time of issue (because of the nature of the questions on the application). This is a development that has occured over the last 25 to 30 years, vis a vis "stranger owned" life insurance, the old "janitor" life insurance, and so on.

That said, you said "finds out" he isn't the father so it sounds like they both thought he was and then later on found out he wasn't. So, there have been cases where -- while the contestable period is over -- an insurance company has brought insurable interest as an issue, under the guise of fraud (in this case, for example, if in fact both the mother and father knew at the time -- however, it sounds like this isn't the case).

Insurance interest may not be an estoppel matter -- a practicing attorney would have to chime in on this -- but the insurance contract is. The insurance policy is a contract and the first defense an insurance company always looks to is an estoppel defense. Thanks.

 

[Allen Trent]

First, insurable interest is not always absolute, cut and dry, or whatever you want to call it, when it comes to whether it existed at time of application AND issue. People say time of issue, time of issue, etc. -- and that is not always the case. In some states, and in some contracts, insurable issue is time of application and time of issue (because of the nature of the questions on the application). This is a development that has occured over the last 25 to 30 years, vis a vis "stranger owned" life insurance, the old "janitor" life insurance, and so on.

That said, you said "finds out" he isn't the father so it sounds like they both thought he was and then later on found out he wasn't. So, there have been cases where -- while the contestable period is over -- an insurance company has brought insurable interest as an issue, under the guise of fraud (in this case, for example, if in fact both the mother and father knew at the time -- however, it sounds like this isn't the case).

Insurance interest may not be an estoppel matter -- a practicing attorney would have to chime in on this -- but the insurance contract is. The insurance policy is a contract and the first defense an insurance company always looks to is an estoppel defense. Thanks.

I know of several beneficiary designations that were challenged in court & won even though the beneficiary was changed after issue, etc.

Some were where an agent became the beneficiary after loaning client money, some were caretakers at end of life. Basically, enough evidence was shown in court that judge overuled the beneficiary designation under either duress or fraud.

extremely rare, but does happen. likely happens a lot more on probate assets that have a slower process than items paid quickly via beneficiary like insurance, annuity, IRA, & TOD bank/brokerage accounts

 

[PrivClientSG]

I know of several beneficiary designations that were challenged in court & won even though the beneficiary was changed after issue, etc.

Some were where an agent became the beneficiary after loaning client money, some were caretakers at end of life. Basically, enough evidence was shown in court that judge overuled the beneficiary designation under either duress or fraud.

extremely rare, but does happen. likely happens a lot more on probate assets that have a slower process than items paid quickly via beneficiary like insurance, annuity, IRA, & TOD bank/brokerage accounts

I didn't state otherwise. Beneficiary designation changes and insurance interest can be mutually exclusive. One may have nothing to do with the other. It may, but it doesn't have to. The OP gave a very specific situation. All the rest is conjecture, LOL.

 

[Allen Trent]

I didn't state otherwise. Beneficiary designation changes and insurance interest can be mutually exclusive. One may have nothing to do with the other. It may, but it doesn't have to. The OP gave a very specific situation. All the rest is conjecture, LOL.

Sorry, i was agreeing with you. Some replies are supporting, not all are debating or disagreeing.........many of mine are sarcastic. I am missing some gene sequences for maturity

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Some replies are supporting, not all are debating or disagreeing

I disagree

 

[Allen Trent]

I disagree

Agree 1000% with you on that