Picture of the day

Grizzly Adams said:
Crop dusting is as dangerous, or more so, than ground attack. :) See them here all the time, my neighbor use to do his own till his nerves got the better of him.


Grizz
Click to expand...

True. If your insurance company finds out you do crop dusting, they cancel your life insurance, because insurance companies aren't in the business of making guaranteed losing bets.
 
Statistically, aerobatics are a lot more dangerous. It's a well known fact on the aerobatic circuit that most years will see 10% of pilots "going West".
 
grelmar said:
True. If your insurance company finds out you do crop dusting, they cancel your life insurance, because insurance companies aren't in the business of making guaranteed losing bets.
Click to expand...

False. Life insurance policies cannot be cancelled by the insurer unless premiums are not being paid. The insurance company can try getting out of paying a death benefit if a death occurred within the 2 year incontestability clause or they would have to prove that the policy was issued under a fraudulent application.

Unless someone has figured out a way to live forever, every life insurance policy is a guaranteed losing bet
 
1963beretta said:
False. Life insurance policies cannot be cancelled by the insurer unless premiums are not being paid. The insurance company can try getting out of paying a death benefit if a death occurred within the 2 year incontestability clause or they would have to prove that the policy was issued under a fraudulent application.

Unless someone has figured out a way to live forever, every life insurance policy is a guaranteed losing bet
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts.

They can cancel your insurance policy under the "Moral Hazard" clause - essentially, they are claiming that you are taking an excessive risk outside the parameters of normal behavior. "Moral Hazard" is a concept entrenched in all contract law.

As for the second part, the insurance company is betting that you will live long enough, that your premiums, and the money they make off investing your premiums, will exceed the eventual payout upon your death. All they need to win their bet, is for you to live a long and healthy life.
 
Bfranklin said:
In 30 years of living in the heart of South AB I have not heard of one crop duster pilot crashing.
Click to expand...

We've had a couple here and some close calls. Right down on the deck, trees or a power line around the field , a lot can go wrong in a hurry. They prefer to spray early in the morning, hopefully before the wind comes up.

Grizz
 
1c49e243a026b743b0d76ab6e3172ad2.jpg
 
grelmar said:
Wrong on both counts.

They can cancel your insurance policy under the "Moral Hazard" clause - essentially, they are claiming that you are taking an excessive risk outside the parameters of normal behavior. "Moral Hazard" is a concept entrenched in all contract law.

As for the second part, the insurance company is betting that you will live long enough, that your premiums, and the money they make off investing your premiums, will exceed the eventual payout upon your death. All they need to win their bet, is for you to live a long and healthy life.
Click to expand...

Your second point is partially correct. An insurer is banking on as long of a life as possible. But if you calculate the total of premiums paid, rarely does it exceed the payout as it was never calculated to do so. Premiums are usually determined to a max age of 100. And not all policies have underlying investments that will make up the difference. What they insurer is mostly banking on is a growth of its business and client base to support contractual payouts

But you are wrong on the first point. Life insurance policies are very different contracts than other type of insurance policies. They cannot be cancelled by the insurer once the policy is issued and premiums kept up to date. Find an exact clause within a life insurance policy that says ofherwise
 
Last edited:
grelmar said:
Wrong on both counts.

They can cancel your insurance policy under the "Moral Hazard" clause - essentially, they are claiming that you are taking an excessive risk outside the parameters of normal behavior. "Moral Hazard" is a concept entrenched in all contract law.

As for the second part, the insurance company is betting that you will live long enough, that your premiums, and the money they make off investing your premiums, will exceed the eventual payout upon your death. All they need to win their bet, is for you to live a long and healthy life.
Click to expand...

I once applied for additional life insurance. A nurse came to my home to examine me and interview me. She asked if I was involved in any "high risk activities". I asked her to define that and she said: "Like down hill skiing". I told her I only x-country skied. I asked about free-fall parachuting which was once my passion. That was NOT considered to be a "high risk activity."!

I asked about guns and shooting which were also NOT regarded as "high risk activities". I figure the actuarians got it right on all counts.
 
grelmar said:
Wrong on both counts.

They can cancel your insurance policy under the "Moral Hazard" clause - essentially, they are claiming that you are taking an excessive risk outside the parameters of normal behavior. "Moral Hazard" is a concept entrenched in all contract law.

As for the second part, the insurance company is betting that you will live long enough, that your premiums, and the money they make off investing your premiums, will exceed the eventual payout upon your death. All they need to win their bet, is for you to live a long and healthy life.
Click to expand...

A life insurance policy, once issued, cannot be cancelled by the insurer except within the first 2 years, if there was misrepresentation in the application. After 2 years, a Canadian policy can only be cancelled if there was fraud in the original application. In the USA, most states do not allow cancellation for any reason after 2 years (unless the premium was not paid).

This is set out in the Insurance Act of each province. Each province uses very similar wording:

Duty to disclose
183. (1) An applicant for insurance and a person whose life is to be insured shall each disclose to the insurer in the application, on a medical examination, if any, and in any written statements or answers furnished as evidence of insurability, every fact within the person’s knowledge that is material to the insurance and is not so disclosed by the other.
Failure to disclose
(2) Subject to section 184, a failure to disclose, or a misrepresentation of, such a fact renders the contract voidable by the insurer. R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 183.


Incontestability
(2) Subject to subsection (3), where a contract has been in effect for two years during the lifetime of the person whose life is insured, a failure to disclose or a misrepresentation of a fact required to be disclosed by section 183 does not, in the absence of fraud, render the contract voidable.
 
Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II of Netherland Air Force in Rainbow Canyon, California.

Pylons for the external armaments are not helping in reducing radar signature IMHO.

5642621.jpg
 
Last edited:
Falcorn said:
Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II of Netherland Air Force in Rainbow Canyon, California. Pylons for the external armaments are not helping in reducing radar signature IMHO.
Click to expand...

It destroys your radar cross section. But not a consideration for this particular aircraft, as it is already fitted with Luneburg lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom