Is it possible to get life insurance as a beneficiary before the person insured dies?
I recall the following business from the AIDS crisis: viatical settlement But because there were life-extending treatments developed in the 1990s, many third parties which engaged in these took a bath and it's not as common. If the insurance policy is a whole-life (or variable life) policy, it might have a surrender value that the owner of the policy might be able to get by surrendering the policy in whole; if it is a term life policy, it has no surrender value. In many cases, the owner of the policy is also the insured and so ask Uncle Joe whether he would be willing to surrender the life insurance policy and give you the proceeds now instead of making you wait till he passes away. If it is a term life policy, ask him to consider not renewing the policy and from now on, just give you the premium he would have been paying to the insurance company. Whether he will pay you increasing amounts in later years (as a renewable five-year level term policy might require) is a more delicate matter that you can negotiate with him. On the other hand, if the policy owner is Aunt Annie but the insured is Uncle Joe (and you are the beneficiary), talk to Aunt Annie instead; she is the one who can cancel the policy, not Uncle Joe. And for heaven's sake, don't grease the skids to facilitate Uncle Joe's first step onto the stairway to heaven; there are, depending on where you live, various laws prohibiting payments to beneficiaries who have had a hand in arranging for the happy event to occur. Generally no. It does not make sense for insurance company to alter terms and if there are such rules it can be subject to misuse. "The short answer is ""No"". There a 2 ways to get cash from a life insurance policy.  If the policy has cash value greater than the surrender value, then the difference can be borrowed, but will generally increase premiums in the future.   The other method, available on many term policies allows the owner to receive part of the death benefit if the insured has a physician willing to certify that he/she will probably pass away within a 12 month period.  Several carriers also offer cash benefits for critical care."
If there are no dependents, there is no need for life insurance.  You mention getting insurance when it is not needed, to protect you against some future risk. If you have a policy and a disease crops up that would normally make you un-insurable, you can keep your insurance for the rest of the term. The cost for this would be very high. You would have to have a term that would last decades to cover you until some future child is out of college. If you never have somebody that depends on you for income, there never is a need for life insurance. Check with the manufacturer of the name brand medication.  Most of them have programs to help people who need their medication but can not afford it.  They may be able to send you coupons for discounted or free medication.  You can go to a free clinic.  If your income is low enough the free clinic will provide medicine until you can get back on insurance.   You can do what alot of people who work hard and do not have insurance do and pay for it outof pocket.  You can talk to your doctor and see if there is an alternative to the expensive medicine that your insurance used to pay for. It may not be as effective or may have other side affects but many people are forced to go with these alternatives.   You situation is certianly unfortunate but also not terribly uncommon.  You probably also have recourse against the former employer but if they commited fraud, and faked your insurance there probably is not alot of money to recoup.  If it was a person who commited fraud then you may be able to get a judgement against them that would survive bankruptcy and the business but it will probably be at least 5 years before you can recoup anything possibly much longer and your attorney will probably not take it on contingency. "John's answer is similar to what I was thinking. You should invest in insurance ""because there's an insurance salesman who needs to pay to send his kid to college."" I will never be a fan of any type of permanent insurance, and I think it wrong to sell a single person with no dependents such a policy. I've used the expression ""Variable Annuities are sold, not bought."" I feel the same about these insurance policies.  The best advice I can offer in a short reply is this: If you need life insurance, buy term. Save as much as you can, 10% minimum, more if you are able. A young person should be saving for retirement and to position them self to buy their first house, if that's what they wish. What good is a full up Whole Life policy when you need to raise $40K to put down on a house? Sorry to sound like I'm lecturing, this is one of my hot points." "This is going to vary from insurer to insurer, and likely year to year.  Typically an insurer will set what it calls the guaranteed rate of return for whole life policies and will allow you to take loans against the cash value of your policy at some adjustment to that rate.  Also typically you pay the interest back to yourself less some small administrative fee. Some insurers have whole life policies called something along the lines of an ""accelerated cash value"" policy or a ""high early cash value"" policy, stick to these ones.  The commission structure is less favorable to the agent/broker but much more of your premium is recognized as cash value earlier. The benefit (for lack of a better word) to taking a loan against your own cash value over taking a loan from a bank is the severely reduced process.  There's no underwriting for your loan like there would be from a bank.  If you're laid off maybe you can't get a loan from a bank but you can scoop some money out of your policy on a loan basis or alternatively you can just surrender the policy and take the accrued cash value. Many people will poo-poo the value of whole life, but fact of the matter is your underwriting status can change in the course of your life and it's possible that in the future you won't be able to buy any life insurance.  There's nothing wrong with having something permanent to supplement your larger term policies. Personally, I view diversification as having money in a lot of different places.  This strategy is probably not as efficient as it could, but I don't like the idea of having all my eggs in one basket.  I have cash in a lock box at home, cash savings, CDs, a personal loan portfolio, bitcoins, index funds, individual stocks, commodity etfs, and bond funds spread in traditional 401(k), ROTH IRA and regular taxable accounts spread out to 6 different institutions.  I don't personally own any whole life, but I'll probably buy a small policy before my next 6-month birthday; I might as well put some money there too.  All of this is to say, do not put all of your money in a whole life policy, and do not buy all of your life insurance needs via whole life." Not to pick your words apart, but I'm used to the word laddering as used with CDs or bonds, where one buys a new say, 7 year duration each year with old money coming due and, in effect, is always earning the longer term rate, while still having new funds available each year.  So. The article you link suggests that there's money to be saved by not taking a long term policy on all the insurance you buy. They split $250K 30 year / $1M 20 year. The money saved by going short on the bigger policy is (they say) $11K.  It's an interesting idea. Will you use the $11K saved to buy a new $1M 10 year policy in 20 years, or will you not need the insurance? There are situations where insurance needs drop, e.g. 20 years into my marriage, college fully funded as are retirement accounts. I am semi-retired and if I passed, there's enough money. There are also situations where the need runs longer. The concept in the article works for the former type of circumstance. "Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent.   First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer.  When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself.  Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite.  People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, ""7-8% a year compounded annually"".  Go look at the historical returns of the stock market.  It is never close to that projection.  Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration).  As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue.  Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time.  These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest).   B. Tax treatment.  I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries.  Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy.  Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this?  To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof?  This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question.  But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam.  And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted. My personal take is that if you are just trying to accrue wealth, you should probably stick to the market and maybe buy term if you want a death benefit component.  This is mostly due to your age (higher risk of death = higher premiums = lower buildup) and how long of a time period you have to build up money in the policy.  But if a 25 year old asked this same question, depending on his purposes, I may suggest that a WL policy is in fact a good idea." "The problem above is actually a pretty good list of the concerns around life insurance.  While there is no correct answer to the question as posed, this will vary among different WSCs, there is a simpler way to think about insurance in general that may make finding what is right answer for you easier. Buying life insurance, like almost all insurance, is on average a money losing purchase.  This is simply because the companies selling wouldn't offer it if they couldn't expect to make money on it.  Think about buying insurance (a warranty) on a new cell phone, maybe if you are particularly prone to damaging cell phones it can be in your favor, but for most of the people that buy it will lose money on average. People, of course, still buy insurance anyway to protect themselves from unlikely but very bad consequences.  The big reason to make this trade off is if the loss will have big lasting consequences.  To stay with our cell phone example having to replace a cell phone, at least for me, would be annoying but not a catastrophic event.  For myself, the protection is not worth the warranty cost, but that is not true for everyone. Life insurance is a pretty extreme case of this, but I find the best question to ask is ""if you (you and your spouse) were to die will your dependents lives become so much worse that you really dislike the idea of not being insured?"" For some working seniors, they already have enough saved to bridge their kids/spouse to adulthood/old-age that insurance makes no sense.  For some, their children/husband/wife would be destitute and insurance is an obvious choice and an easy price to pay even if it is very high.  The example you suggest seems on the border and good questions to ask are: Thinking about those questions may help you understand if the protection offers is worth the cost." "You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance.  For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000.  A lot of people don't have $100,000.  So it's not even a matter of ""I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes""; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings.  You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life.  It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential ""cost"" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify.  When the potential nonfinancial ""collateral damage"" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult."