P1P2 - Legal Case - Maloof v John Hancock

  • The Maloofs <Policyowner> subsequently received a notice from John Hancock dated February 13, 2007, notifying them that an additional premium paymentA of $5,265 was required by April 15, 2007, in order to continueB  the 1992 universal-life policy until July 13, 2007; otherwise, the notice informed them, the 1992 universal life policy would terminateC on April 15. <2007> 
  • After receiving these notices, John <Policyowner> contacted Glasgow <Agent> who had retired in 2000, to inquire why his policies would be terminatingD, even though he had timely paid the premiumsE on the policies for approximately 18 years.  (p4-5)
  • The undisputed facts indicate that Glasgow <Agent> did in fact procure two universal life-insurance policies for the Maloofs and that, had the Maloofs <Policyowner> continued to pay sufficient premiumsF on those policies, they would have remained in effectG and the benefitsH of those policies would have been available for any purpose after John died. (p21)
  • Thus, the undisputed facts indicate that Glasgow <Agent> in fact fulfilled the Maloofs' <Policyowner> request to procure life-insurance policies that would provide fundsJ that could be used to pay estate taxes upon John's death <Policyowner>, and those policies were canceledJ only after the Maloofs <Policyowner> failed to pay the required premiumsK. (p22)

2010 - Legal Case - Maloof v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. -  60 So. 3d 263 - Alabama Supreme Court Opinion - 39p

 

Bonk

P1

E1

SIV

i

CIV

P2

E2

DB-A

DB-CP

 
  • premium paymentA of $5,265 was required
  • timely paid the premiumsE
  • sufficient premiumsF

 

 

 

 
  • required premiumsK

 
  • benefitsH of those policies
  • would provide fundsJ
  • in order to continueB the 1992 universal-life policy until July 13, 2007
  • otherwise, the notice informed them, the 1992 universal life policy would terminateC on April 15. <2007> 
  • his policies would be terminatingD
  • would have remained in effectG
  • would have been available for any purpose after John died

 

  • The Maloofs <Policyowner> subsequently received a notice from John Hancock dated February 13, 2007, notifying them that an additional premium paymentP1 of $5,265 was required by April 15, 2007, in order to continueDB-CP the 1992 universal-life policy until July 13, 2007; otherwise, the notice informed them, the 1992 universal life policy would terminateDB-CP on April 15. <2007> 
  • After receiving these notices, John <Policyowner> contacted Glasgow <Agent> who had retired in 2000, to inquire why his policies would be terminatingDB-CP, even though he had timely paid the premiumsP1 on the policies for approximately 18 years.  (p4-5)
  • The undisputed facts indicate that Glasgow <Agent> did in fact procure two universal life-insurance policies for the Maloofs and that, had the Maloofs <Policyowner> continued to pay sufficient premiumsP1 on those policies, they would have remained in effectDB-CP and the benefitsDB-A of those policies would have been available for any purpose after John died. (p21)
  • Thus, the undisputed facts indicate that Glasgow <Agent> in fact fulfilled the Maloofs' <Policyowner> request to procure life-insurance policies that would provide fundsDB-A that could be used to pay estate taxes upon John's death <Policyowner>, and those policies were canceledDB-CP only after the Maloofs <Policyowner> failed to pay the required premiumsP2. (p22)

2010 - Legal Case - Maloof v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. -  60 So. 3d 263 - Alabama Supreme Court Opinion - 39p