What happens if the term insurance company closes?
This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business.  Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad.
"Title insurance protects you from losing rights to your property in case of a court decision. Let's look at an example I recently found in local newspapers. One old woman sold her apartment to person A. The deed was attested by a notary public who verified that indeed in was that old woman putting her signature on the deed. Then person A sold the apartment to person B, etc, then after several deals some unfortunate Buyer bought that apartment. The deal looked allright, so he's got a mortgage to pay for the apartment. Later it turned out that the old lady died three months before she ""sold"" the apartment and the notary public was corrupt. Old lady's heirs filed a lawsuit and the deal was void. So the ultimate Buyer lost all rights to the apartment although he purchased it legally. This is the case when title insurance kicks in. You need one if there's a chance for a deal to be deemed void." In some cases, we when we see an opportunity to save our clients money, without risking valuable coverage or diminishing benefits, we make certain recommendations for more affordable life insurance. One of these strategies is laddering (or layering) term lengths, or term maturities. The strategy is simple. While most people who are considering longer terms, such as 20 or 30 year term, purchase a single policy to fit their needs, the laddering strategy has you purchase two policies totaling the same amount of coverage you currently need, but with a shorter length term mixed with the longer term. For example, instead of purchasing a 30 year term for $1 million dollars, you might purchase two policies for $500,000 each, one with a 15 year term, and the other with a 30 year term. The result is typically a savings of 15%-25% on your term life insurance. Just be aware that the plan going in is to let the first policy go (the one with the shorter term length) when its level term has expired. For example in a 15 year term, the premiums will be guaranteed to stay level the first 15 years, and then increase every year thereafter. There is typically a sizable jump in rates in that 16th year. Clients often see rates increase 8-10 times or more. Therefore, it’s important you understand that going in, and realize you will most likely let that first policy go when the premiums increase, leaving you with the second policy through the end of its (longer) level term. You can crunch some numbers with our laddering calculator: https://www.jrcinsurancegroup.com/term-life-insurance-laddering-calculator/ Company was founded as a co-op.  If the company has a loss, you get negative patronage. Basically, it is a paper loss until the company can erase it with profits. However, you would have to pay it off you left the company before it was positive. That's my understanding. The company has only been profitable since I have been here.  If the company were to go bankrupt and didn't have enough assets to pay everyone, first it would pay taxes, then (if there was money) it would pay secured lenders, then unsecured lenders, then preferred shareholders, and finally, in the unlikely event that there was any money left, the workers would get paid back the value of their common stock. "Evaluate if the Rs 5 million term insurance is sufficient. Typically the term insurance provided by employer is in the range of 1 to 3 times the gross. Generally one should be covered in the range of 5 to 10 times the Gross. The sooner you start the lesser the premium and you can get insured for a large amount for a long duration at very nominal rate.  NOTE:  You can also buy a health insurance for your father, note these typically come at high cost, generally if over 70 years of age, 25% is the premium amount and 25% as co-pay. So if your dad doesn't fall ill once in 3 years, its a loss making proposition. Edit: Accident insurance best take is along with rider on term plan. Additional Health insurance is a good idea and helps if you are in between jobs. Plus the new company health insurance can reject a particular treatment as ""Pre-Existing"". i.e. certain illness [in certain plans] require one to have coverage for 3 years before the claim for it can be covered." Yes, any company can go under. SIPC offers a level of protection. They don't guarantee against stocks dropping, but will replace stocks that you owned, but the broker stole from you. (overgeneralization). There's a $500K limit, with $250K max in cash. "Sure, and everything you've said here is absolutely true for a fully immunized portfolio.  What the OP suggests is that it's simply impossible to effectively defease future obligations.  He is pitching not so much finance as he is a political philosophy that can be summed up by ""defined benefit plans are impediments to competition.""  In the OP's world, the business of life and casualty insurance would implode within a few years of inception.  Actuarial science would be dismissed as mathematical witchcraft.  We would see company after company laid low by overwhelming future obligations against which they have no defense.  Rather, what we have are instances of *poor financial management.*  As opposed to the fine examples set by insurers, endowments, foundations, etc. (all of which can remain successful ongoing concerns in perpetuity), what we have are businesses who decided that it would be better to cut corners and bet on risk, rather than to take the safer (but more expensive) route and effectively manage their assets in relation to their liabilities.    He then goes on to suggest that, in laying off their problems, business are simply ""doing everybody a favor.""  These business (and their highly educated financial managers) are taking their flaming piles of shit, handing it over to the guy whose expertise most likely involves the repetitive operation of a machine, and saying ""here you go, this is a good deal for you, enjoy managing your future!""" It probably does make sense for you to buy term life insurance separate from your employer, for a few reasons: There are a number of life insurance calculators on the web. Try two or three -- some of them ask different questions and can give you a range of answers regarding how much coverage you should have. Then take a look at some of the online quote sites -- there are a couple that don't require you to enter your personal information, just general age/health/zip code so you can get an accurate quote for a couple of different coverage levels without having to deal with a salesman yet. (It was my experience that these quotes were very close -- within $20/year -- of what I was quoted through an agent.)  Using this information, decide how much coverage you need and can afford. If you're a homeowner, and the insurance company with whom you have your homeowner's policy offers life insurance, call them up and get a quote. They may be able to give you a discount because of your existing relationship; sanity check this against what you got from the quotes website. First, you need to understand how modern insurance companies operate. On the front end, they write contracts with customers, collecting up front premiums, and promising to pay out to cover future losses. Efficient premiums cover exactly what's paid out; if you charge too much customers leave for competition, and if you charge too little the company goes under, or at least loses money. Large armies of people are employed to accurately guess future risks, hopefully to the point of certainty you have in human mortality.  So over time, they will pay back those premiums. And there's a constant stream of new premiums coming in to replace money going out. So there's this effective pool of money they can use to buffer against large losses with; it's called float. And when the pool of money remains relatively constant, they can invest it longer term than the people who comprise the underlying risk. Large insurance companies like Berkshire Hathaway function in this manner; it's where Warren Buffet finds capital to invest while hiding from Wall St in Nebraska. The way these companies profit is by making sure the equation works:  Profits = Premiums - Payouts + Return on float Payouts could be just payments for insured risk. But they could also be for the whole life insurance you're running across from time to time. These contracts offer the insured the chance to invest their money with the people who invest the float. And as long as the return on float is greater than the return they're offering, it's still profitable for the company. Since this guarantees suboptimal returns for you, it's usually a good idea to buy term insurance (much cheaper) and invest the difference yourself. I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950.  The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money;   On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns.  Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent. There are two scenarios that I see. You have a mortgage on the property. Generally the insurance company sends the funds to the lender, who then releases the funds to you  as you make the repairs. They do it this way because if you never make the repairs the value of the collateral is decreased, and the lender wants to protect their investment. There is no mortgage. You will get the funds directly, and the insurance company will not force you to make the repairs especially if the repairs are cosmetic in nature.  In either case if you don't fix the cause of the leak, and make repairs to the site around the leak, you will run into a problem in the future if the leak continues, or the rot and mold continues to spread.  If you file a future claim they are likely to ask for proof of the original repair. If you didn't make it, they are likely to deny the second claim. They will say the cause is the original incident and if you had made the repair, the second incident wouldn't have happened. They are likely to drop you at that point. If you try to sell the house you will have to disclose the original leak, and the potential buyers will want you to make the repairs. Any mold or rot spotted by the home inspector will be a big issue for them. It is also likely to be an item that they will be advised to demand that you get a legitimate company to make the repair before the deal can move forward, and won't negotiate a lower price or a credit for $x so they can get the repair done. Some will just cancel the deal based on the inspection report. Publix is another employee owned massive chain, grocery store but also in Florida. Have known someone work their way up to GM and be sitting on quite a load of stocks.  Some insurance companies in Florida are also privately held and give employees stock options. The issuer of the service contract is making money. DO NOT buy these contracts.  Self insure over your life time 40/60 years and you will save money. Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund?   SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves. "I was a Primerica representative, left to be on my own, and then returned. Insurance is one matter that depends on the individual. Some do not need it.  For example, when I was an independent agent with an independent marketing organization (IMO) (oh yes! multi-level is everywhere, dont kid yourself) I had an upline as well. We were pushed to sell final expense [burial insurance].  As an ethical agent, I believe this is a bad business practice.  Primerica does not sell unneeded insurance to old people. How can you justify selling the elderly, insurance to cover them for $10,000, at almost 100 to 150 a month? I told my elderly potential clients, after seeing they live on a tight budget,  that they were better off purchasing a cremation policy or funeral package than burial insurances as it would save them money in the long run. Primerica is right in saying they are the only ones out there catering to the Working Class and Middle-America. Where else can you start an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with $25 a month?  Nowhere! All the other insurance producers want more money. They don't want to spend their time with what they call ""losers"".  I love showing Poor people how the Rich get richer.  Poor people should know the truth." Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means:  The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position.  The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction.  Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract.  When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice.  If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction.  In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned.  Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away.  Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction.  But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.