D.F. Manno <dfmanno@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mary <mrfeathers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Dover Beach <moon.blanc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Oy. ?I just called Farmers (the place was previously insured
> > > through Farmers) and got an agent who is willing to give it the
> > > ol' college try. ?He, too, seemed to feel that it is necessary to
> > > have a human being as the named insured, though he was also
> > > willing to wedge the trust's name into the relevant field. ?So I
> > > put a call in to my lawyer (not my husband) and asked if I should
> > > be the named insured since I'm the trustee. ?I really don't think
> > > my mom should be the named insured.
> > I don't understand why they think a trust or other non-human being
> > can't be a named insured. Companies are named insured all the time.
> > I mean, these people are working in the insurance industry,
> > shouldn't they know this stuff?
> The subject never came up in the two-plus years I worked for an
> insurance company.
The Army is very big on making sure that your SGLI and SF99 next-of-kin
notification forms are complete, and I had mine set up to pay out to the
trust in my will, since I wanted to leave some money to my then-underage
youngest brother, and the only way to do that is through a trust. This
is all clearly spelled out in the SGLI regulation. In spite of this, I
generally had to carry a copy of that regulation, with the section
labeled "TO THE TRUST IN MY ESTATE" highlighted, since the people
responsible for seeing that the forms were completed correctly had
apparently never heard of that.
--
Huey
|
