Divorce insurance: Another bad bet
NYT tells us that SafeGuard Guaranty of North Carolina is offering divorce insurance.
The casualty insurance is designed to provide financial assistance in the form of cash to cover the costs of a divorce, such as legal proceedings or setting up a new apartment or house. It is sold in “units of protection.” Each unit costs $15.99 per month and provides $1,250 in coverage. So, if you bought 10 units, your initial coverage would be $12,500 and you’d be paying $15.99 per month for each of those units. In addition, every year, the company adds $250 in coverage for each unit.Then, if you get divorced and your policy has matured (see below for the maturation rules), you would send WedLock proof of your divorce. In return, you’d receive a lump sum of cash equivalent to the amount of coverage you had purchased.
The company tries to discourage adverse selection (people likely to divorce will buy the policy) by requiring a "maturation" of the policy. You can't just buy it and get divorced tomorrow. Still, I'd be surprised to see this as a moneymaker. It seems expensive, anyway.
As Alex Tabarrok says:
My wife tells me she already has divorce insurance, it's called a job.







Comments
Another bad bet? Think so? Okay, let's take a real look at the odds. 1 in 300 that your house will burn down in any given year. A little higher for flood damage over the life of your mortgage - 1 in 60. And actuaries using standard mortality tables peg the odds of you dying over any 20 years in your lifetime at 8 out of 1000 (or 1 in 125). Disability comes in even more frequent at 1 in 80 but too few people are smart enough to insure their income (which is what disability insurance actually does) even though their income is what pays for everything else. Now let’s look at the odds of divorce, which BTW ordinarily results in a loss of 77% of your net worth according to a study done by Ohio State University and results in 44% of American families going below the poverty line for some period of time according to another study. The odds that you'll divorce if you're on your first marriage is 2 out of 5 (40%). And don't feel safe just because you reached past that 8 year mark by which most 1st marriages fail, because there's a big spike right around year 20. Look at Al and Tipper Gore if you think you're immune. And for people already on their second marriage? Chances are high they already know the devastation that divorce can cause but their odds of marriage failure are 2 out of 3 (67%). Third marriages are almost 3 out of 4 (72% fail). The reality is that the risk of divorce is real and tangible. The cost of divorce is ruinous to most people but the cost of divorce insurance is relative to the size of the policy. However, if you do the math, the ROI is 62.9%. Find me some other investment that makes that kind of return and can't be snatched by a greedy ex spouse and I'll buy it myself. ;) Is it for everyone? No, but if it were, maybe you and I as taxpayers wouldn't have to foot an annual bill of $112 BILLION dollars in Federal, State and Local taxes that go to support fragmented families every year. Food for thought.
Posted by: John Logan | August 9, 2010 1:32 PM
1. Where can one find a copy of that Ohio State University study? I've tried googling with no luck.
2. Can you provide more details on the 44% of families who fall below the poverty line following a divorce? How many were at or near that line prior to the divorce? What constitutes the "family" post-divorce? How long does the family typically stay below the poverty line?
3. What percentage of "fragmented families" are single mothers with children who never married?
4. "...if you do the math, the ROI is 62.9%" I can't do that math because I have no idea what figures you're using.
Posted by: Nick K. | August 9, 2010 4:21 PM
My mother would have bought it for me if it'd been available. Second marriages should be required to have it! Can they legislate it like the do car insurance? :) I mean, it's way more likely that I'll get divorced than get into a car accident... at least it feels like it from this end.
Posted by: divorced second wife | August 11, 2010 1:15 AM
Amazing. I never thought insurance go that far. But that's great. Good enough to for a new start. Nice of the author to blog such things, informative and something to share.
Posted by: Motor Insurance Quote Boy | September 1, 2010 9:45 AM
Nick K.
All the statistics I reference are from studies listed on our website's research page. https://www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com/Research.aspx
However, in reference to your particular questions:
1. Where can one find a copy of that Ohio State University study? I've tried googling with no luck.
Journal of Sociology, December 2005; vol. 41, 4: pp. 406-424. I had no trouble finding Google references to that study simply by searching Mr. Zagorsky's last name and the 77% figure. Here is the link to the OSU research center referencing the study. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/divwlth.htm
2. Can you provide more details on the 44% of families who fall below the poverty line following a divorce? How many were at or near that line prior to the divorce? What constitutes the "family" post-divorce? How long does the family typically stay below the poverty line?
I suggest you reference the study yourself for that level of information. It's an eye-opening document - Julia A. Heath and B. F. Kiker, “Determinants of Spells of Poverty Following Divorce” Review of Social Economy, 50
3. What percentage of "fragmented families" are single mothers with children who never married?
Once again, I suggest you reference the study, "The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States" for that detail of information. Here is a link to that document - http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm
4. "...if you do the math, the ROI is 62.9%" I can't do that math because I have no idea what figures you're using.
Paid in premium divided by Paid out claim dollars. Visit the website and model a policy to see for yourself.
Posted by: John Logan | September 6, 2010 5:48 PM
Still, I'd be surprised to see this as a moneymaker. It seems expensive, anyway.
Posted by: James Morgan - Puritan Financial Advisor | October 12, 2010 2:50 AM