[PhillipHer]

What about pre-obtained policies ?
If you have had a policy for many years and at the time
you had no plans of travel, but now 10 years later you decide to travel,
would it not have to clearly state in your policy that this travel is
a violation and render default ?

Piquante

[Drugmachine]

Unfortunately, it is doubtful that a Congressional bill would prevent this practice. The business of insurance in the US is regulated almost entirely by the individual states rather than the Federal government, so there is likely to be quite a bit of opposition to this initiative.

However, if enough people complain and/or switch, pressure can be put on the individual states and insurers, to stop this. Every single state has standards for underwriting and claims practices, that prevent "unfair discrimination". The "unfair" part, however, is interpreted differently by different states. If an insurer can actuarially support that it needs a higher rate for, - or cannot handle without going bankrupt, - a specific group of people, they are usually allowed to do that. It seems rather doubtful that they would be able to show bankruptcy from travellers to Israel, however: there simply aren't enough people going.

To file a complaint for unfair underwriting practices, go to the state insurance department website, and locate the complaint form. Here is a link for the map of insurance regulators in all the states and DC.

www.naic.org/state_contacts/sid_websites.htm

Unfortunately, every state puts the complaint form in a different place, so if you can't find yours, jot me a PM with the specific state information, and I will get you a link.

[S.T.D.]

I am not very familiar with the nitty-gritty of life insurance; but as a general concept, an insurance policy is a contract. So, - yes, - in order to be able to penalize an existing policyholder for travel not otherwise prohibited by law, in the course of the policy term, it must clearly state this as a condition.

The insurance company, unless stated in the contract in force, or under amendments issued thereafter, cannot refuse a death claim to someone dying in a country on a "watch" list.

It is at the time of underwriting, where an applicant indicates on their application that they plan in the next year or two to travel to a country on the watch list, that an insurance company can refuse to issue a policy on that person. Once the policy is issued, unless the company has issued an amendment after the policy is accepted - which must be signed and agreed to by the policyholder - the terms of the contract cannot be changed.

This holds true for most life insurance companies licensed in the state of New York, which the vast majority of the 50 states follow closely in their own regulations and guidelines.

Thanks! That's what I thought: insurance is insurance - life, health, or P&C...

For P&C, in fact, the Company cannot issue an endorsement/amendment restricting coverage or otherwise making the contract less advantageous to the Insured (for example, higher deductible or premium, lower limits, etc.) without Insured's express consent. When the Company is the initiator of such changes, it must give proper notice of changes in conditions ("Conditional Renewal") prior to - or in the course of - tendering the offer for the renewal contract, allowing adequate time (usually 30-90 days prior to expiration of the old one) for Insured to replace it.

However, unlike P&C, life policies are "rolling", aren't they? So, the same contract is in force throughout the life of the policy, unless terminated by either party? They must, then, be able to amend the contract "mid-term" in some way, if the exposure changes... It is doubtful, however, that they can do so without the proper notice of 45-60 days, like in P&C?

[Ifroham4]

This is on the news now. There is a bill in Congress to block this practice.

In fact during the same time, actuarially, fewer people were killed in violence in Israel than were killed in NYC, LA or Detroit during only a 6 month time.