Life assurance & HIV

Silfa

Thanks, micar. It looks like the friend of mine did his homework and investigated all options before settling on the decision to hide his condition. I mean, if currently all companies turn all HIV+ people down, then there's not much that you can do...

Can you disclose if there's a list of nationalities that are always required to submit HIV test results?

micar

Silfa wrote: »

Thanks, micar. It looks like the friend of mine did his homework and investigated all options before settling on the decision to hide his condition. I mean, if currently all companies turn all HIV+ people down, then there's not much that you can do...

Can you disclose if there's a list of nationalities that are always required to submit HIV test results?

TBH, I have no idea. I don;t work in new business or underwriting.
Sorry

runawaybishop

yoginindublin wrote: »

there are certain nationalities that need to get an hiv or hepa b test for the coverage irregardless of amount.

I think you are mean regardless of the amount?

Tescosolvakia

Bank of Ireland offers life assurance for some people with HIV.

http://www.bankofireland.com/about-bank-of-ireland/press-room/press-releases/item/169/bank-of-ireland-life-offers-life-cover-to-hepatitis-and-hiv-sufferers-in-conjunction-with-hse-state-insurance-scheme/

Also look at www.hepcinsurance.ie

If he's not eligible for cover from the above then he can sign a waiver and so would not require life assurance. There are a few categories of borrowers who can sign a waiver instead of taking out a life assurance policy.
This may reduce the LTV the lender is offering as the house will be sold at death and they don't want a shortfall!

If he does not disclose his HIV status the policy is voided when it's discovered and the loan could be immediately called for...emphasis on the "could be".

micar

Tescosolvakia wrote: »

Bank of Ireland offers life assurance for some people with HIV.

http://www.bankofireland.com/about-bank-of-ireland/press-room/press-releases/item/169/bank-of-ireland-life-offers-life-cover-to-hepatitis-and-hiv-sufferers-in-conjunction-with-hse-state-insurance-scheme/

Also look at www.hepcinsurance.ie

If he's not eligible for cover from the above then he can sign a waiver and so would not require life assurance. There are a few categories of borrowers who can sign a waiver instead of taking out a life assurance policy.
This may reduce the LTV the lender is offering as the house will be sold at death and they don't want a shortfall!

If he does not disclose his HIV status the policy is voided when it's discovered and the loan could be immediately called for...emphasis on the "could be".

that states that "Securing a mortgage that will inevitably require some form of protection plan, may be more difficult for those who have been infected by Hepatitis C and/or HIV through contaminated blood product"

Tescosolvakia

micar wrote: »

that states that "Securing a mortgage that will inevitably require some form of protection plan, may be more difficult for those who have been infected by Hepatitis C and/or HIV through contaminated blood product"

Well I don't know how he got HIV!
Also my post says if he isn't eligible for cover under that then he can sign a waiver.

gaius c

Layinghen wrote: »

He does realise that if he dies the mortgage doesn't die with him. If the life company don't pay out on the Policy the bank will then go after his estate for the balance. His next of kin could be elderly parents, does he want them to have this scenario foisted upon them?

Why would his next of kin be liable for his debts unless they go guarantor on the mortgage?

gaius c

To add to Killer's list, I know gay couples who were required to have HIV tests as part of the mortgage approval/life assurance process.

Layinghen

gaius c wrote: »

Why would his next of kin be liable for his debts unless they go guarantor on the mortgage?

It is the estate that would be liable. The point I was trying to make is that surely you would not want elderly parents who are dealing with losing their child having the winding up of the estate being such a mess.

camphor

Layinghen wrote: »

It is the estate that would be liable. The point I was trying to make is that surely you would not want elderly parents who are dealing with losing their child having the winding up of the estate being such a mess.

What mes? It is the same work to wind up a solvent estate as an insolvent one, maybe even easier. the per rep can surrender the house to the bank and tell everyone else to go bugger. No need for a grant of probate even.

L1011

gaius c wrote: »

To add to Killer's list, I know gay couples who were required to have HIV tests as part of the mortgage approval/life assurance process.

Illegally, if they weren't requiring every other couple in the same age/health situation.. Any relationship, sexuality, or assumed of either based questions of requirements for insurance forms or medicals are illegal. One of the main insurers was hauled over the coals for it a few years ago. Its not deemed a valid actuarial basis anymore, like gender isn't either.

You can require everyone to have a test in certain circumstances, but you cannot solely require people you know or assume to be gay/MSM.

Mrs OBumble

Layinghen wrote: »

It is the estate that would be liable. The point I was trying to make is that surely you would not want elderly parents who are dealing with losing their child having the winding up of the estate being such a mess.

It would be pretty damn irresponsible of a person in this situation to:
1) not have a will, or
2) to have elderly parents as the executor.

Silfa

Several people above suggested that past residents of certain countries will need to do the HIV test regardless of insurance amount and other circumstances. Does anyone know if that's true? I would assume this could be true for immigrants from Africa, but what about Eastern Europe?

killers1

Silfa wrote: »

Several people above suggested that past residents of certain countries will need to do the HIV test regardless of insurance amount and other circumstances. Does anyone know if that's true? I would assume this could be true for immigrants from Africa, but what about Eastern Europe?

Eastern Europe, generally no.

Layinghen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It would be pretty damn irresponsible of a person in this situation to:
1) not have a will, or
2) to have elderly parents as the executor.

Agree 100% but remember this is the same person who is planning to knowingly make a false health declaration in order to try and get mortgage protection cover. Unfortunately I would assume therefore that making a will to get all his affairs in order might not be high on his list of priorities.

Silfa

killers1 wrote: »

Eastern Europe, generally no.

Thanks!

Silfa

Layinghen wrote: »

Agree 100% but remember this is the same person who is planning to knowingly make a false health declaration in order to try and get mortgage protection cover. Unfortunately I would assume therefore that making a will to get all his affairs in order might not be high on his list of priorities.

Yes, let's turn this thread into a discussion of what's morally acceptable :rolleyes:

Rosier

Potatoeman wrote: »

Many of the things you mentioned a tennant pays or are passed onto them through rent increases. The advantage of buying when repayments are about the same as rent is stability and asset ownership. When the mortgage is cleared you own the asset whereas you will always be paying rent and it will likly increase higher than mortgage payments over its term.

Depends on eg your age.

I made the decision to sell and rent a decade ago. On a pension it was getting impossible to pay for repairs, replacing equipment etc.

Property can easily become a costly millstone. And I have found it hard to get reliable workmen in Ireland.

Never had rent raised on me and so easy when things do wrong. Last winter the heating broke down and recently the water pump. Fixed promptly and at no cost to me.

I pay the utilities I use is all as I would in an owned house

Mrs OBumble

Layinghen wrote: »

Agree 100% but remember this is the same person who is planning to knowingly make a false health declaration in order to try and get mortgage protection cover. Unfortunately I would assume therefore that making a will to get all his affairs in order might not be high on his list of priorities.

I don't think that's a valid assumption.

Lots of people getting Rent Allowance are knowignly making false declarations to Welfare about how much rent they pay, as it's the only way that they can get accommoation. I don't see this as morally any different.

Silfa

Very different. If a person claims rent allowance by making false declarations, s/he is stealing from taxpayers, plain and simple. On the other hand, a person who cheats on his or her life assurance form is only possibly reducing the inheritance that will be left to his heirs. And unless by making so he or she is depriving their small children of basic means to live and have education, everyone has complete moral right to do whatever they want with the property they own.

The_Conductor

Silfa wrote: »

everyone has complete moral right to do whatever they want with the property they own.

You don't own a residence- until you have paid the final payment on the mortgage. By procuring a mortgage under false pretences- or by giving false information- irrespective of your intention to pay the mortgage or not- you are committing fraud- as surely as you are if you deliberately defraud the taxpayer.

I don't get this notion- there is no victim in all of this- every single payer of insurance in the country- is a victim- because when people fraudulently obtain insurance- it costs all of us more for our legitimate cover.

Silfa

You are seriously distorting the situation. For other payers of insurance (or the insurance company, or state, or anyone) to become victims and suffer loss, the person must actually make a claim and be paid. But I don't think someone with HIV seriously believes the company would pay out the coverage if/when they die prematurely. On the contrary, the company would get to keep all the bonuses paid to it over the years without having to pay back a cent.

The fact that the property will not be fully paid out doesn't matter at all. The bank will get their share (and much more!), and whatever is left, if anything, will go to heirs. And the person is question will get to live in a place that they can call their own. Comparing this situation to someone unlawfully claiming rent supplement (i.e., directly robbing state/taxpayers) is totally unfair.

Anyways, I myself wasn't sure what to make of this whole situation before, but thanks to all who replied I was able to better understand the whole situation. I am now even more confident that it's a dangerous thing to do (financially), but on the other hand I guess we all sometimes find ourselves in a grey area where the best course of action is just make sure no one gets hurt from our actions.

The_Morrigan

Silfa wrote: »

You are seriously distorting the situation. For other payers of insurance (or the insurance company, or state, or anyone) to become victims and suffer loss, the person must actually make a claim and be paid. But I don't think someone with HIV seriously believes the company would pay out the coverage if/when they die prematurely. On the contrary, the company would get to keep all the bonuses paid to it over the years without having to pay back a cent.

The fact that the property will not be fully paid out doesn't matter at all. The bank will get their share (and much more!), and whatever is left, if anything, will go to heirs. And the person is question will get to live in a place that they can call their own. Comparing this situation to someone unlawfully claiming rent supplement (i.e., directly robbing state/taxpayers) is totally unfair.

Anyways, I myself wasn't sure what to make of this whole situation before, but thanks to all who replied I was able to better understand the whole situation. I am now even more confident that it's a dangerous thing to do (financially), but on the other hand I guess we all sometimes find ourselves in a grey area where the best course of action is just make sure no one gets hurt from our actions.

Silfa are you being serious?
Fraudulent activity is not a grey area, it is very black and white and taking the stance that noone really gets hurt is absolutely stupid.
It is also completely fair to compare to someone defrauding social welfare, or in fact any form of gambling with the system so the person gains solely from their actions with no regards for the consequences.

Should we let any criminals away with their crimes just because CAB or NAMA hold their assets now? Isn't that the same line of thinking....the assets are no longer in the hands of the person who played the system, sure it's all fine now, isn't it?

Silfa

No, stupid is comparing someone who robbed people (the entire country, really) to someone whose actions are not going to hurt anyone.

Anyways, I think I've learnt what I needed and then some more, so I'm not going to continue arguing. Especially given that us arguing is not going to make a slightest difference in real life.

The_Morrigan

Silfa wrote: »

No, stupid is comparing someone who robbed people (the entire country, really) to someone whose actions are not going to hurt anyone.

Anyways, I think I've learnt what I needed and then some more, so I'm not going to continue arguing. Especially given that us arguing is not going to make a slightest difference in real life.

If he dies leaving debt and a house in NE it's going to affect me as a tax payer and I'm sick to the back teeth of selfish gits increasing my outgoings.

Silfa

How about directing your rage at those who have facilitated the bubble in the first place instead of getting angry at situations that are as unlikely as winning a lotto? How about your bank who used to give mortgages to thousands of unqualified customers causing unrealistic growth of property prices? Have you already stopped banking with those gits and taken them to court? Just an example.

The_Morrigan

Silfa wrote: »

How about directing your rage at those who have facilitated the bubble in the first place instead of getting angry at situations that are as unlikely as winning a lotto? How about your bank who used to give mortgages to thousands of unqualified customers causing unrealistic growth of property prices? Have you already stopped banking with those gits and taken them to court? Just an example.

I have no locus standi, so that would be a pointless exercise.

The_Conductor

I think the OP has received as much information and/or ideas about this as they're going to do- and recriminations about blaming the banks etc- is not going to achieve anything at all. Accordingly I am closing this thread.

Regards,

The_Conductor