My unemployed "ex-" husband demands to be kept on my health insurance

[mistoffolees]

I want to see an actual statute that says the employer is prohibited from allowing a employee to cover their former spouse, not a newsletter article. The most you've shown me so far is that there is no statute that says they must, not that there is a statute that says they can't.

Please see my above posts.

TWO DIFFERENT CA LAWYERS say it can't be done. It is forbidden by statute in NJ. Multiple sites specializing in either divorce or health insurance say it's not allowed.

And in my extensive experience in buying health insurance for employees, it was consistently made clear that it is forbidden to have non-family members on a family policy. Every single policy that was offered said "family members". if you could have non-family members, what's to stop someone from insuring their entire neighborhood under their work family plan?

So I've provided extensive documentation. Where's YOUR evidence that it is legally permissible to retain an ex spouse on a employer sponsored medical policy (excluding COBRA or similar policies of course, since it has already been stated that those are clearly permissible). Please provide sufficient evidence to prove those CA lawyers wrong.

Sorry, but I'll stick with multiple lawyers, state statutes, and multiple sites that agree with my experience rather than your ZERO evidence.

 

[mlane58]

Please see my above posts.

TWO DIFFERENT CA LAWYERS say it can't be done. It is forbidden by statute in NJ. Multiple sites specializing in either divorce or health insurance say it's not allowed.

And in my extensive experience in buying health insurance for employees, it was consistently made clear that it is forbidden to have non-family members on a family policy. Every single policy that was offered said "family members". if you could have non-family members, what's to stop someone from insuring their entire neighborhood under their work family plan?

So I've provided extensive documentation. Where's YOUR evidence that it is legally permissible to retain an ex spouse on a employer sponsored medical policy (excluding COBRA or similar policies of course, since it has already been stated that those are clearly permissible). Please provide sufficient evidence to prove those CA lawyers wrong.

Sorry, but I'll stick with multiple lawyers, state statutes, and multiple sites that agree with my experience rather than your ZERO evidence.

You haven't provided any evidence or documentation that states it is illegal. All you have posted are articles by attorneys and other groups. I could care less what the attorneys have to say and their word isn't statute or gospel. Where is the NJ statute you refer to---would love to see it.

 

[cbg]

Again, show me a statute, not an article. What is the statute number of the NJ law that says it's prohibited? What is the name of the case law that established it? Until you provide that, I'm not buying.

A plan document will spell out precisely who is allowed. If the plan document spells out, "Ex spouses" and yes I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES PLANS WHICH SAY THIS, then THAT is what will prevent someone from "insuring their entire neighborhoods". An ex spouse is not an entire neighborhood.

You have posted no statutes or case law to show that it CANNOT be done. I agree that there is not a statute saying that it MUST be done but that is not the same thing as saying that it cannot be done.

 

[mistoffolees]

Again, show me a statute, not an article. What is the statute number of the NJ law that says it's prohibited? What is the name of the case law that established it? Until you provide that, I'm not buying.

A plan document will spell out precisely who is allowed. If the plan document spells out, "Ex spouses" and yes I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES PLANS WHICH SAY THIS, then THAT is what will prevent someone from "insuring their entire neighborhoods". An ex spouse is not an entire neighborhood.

You have posted no statutes or case law to show that it CANNOT be done. I agree that there is not a statute saying that it MUST be done but that is not the same thing as saying that it cannot be done.

I gave you a NJ attorney who says it can't be done. I gave you two separate CA attorneys who said it can't be done. I gave you many other sites that all say it can't be done.

On your side, all you have is "I've seen it" with no documentation. You're the one claiming that it's possible - in contradiction to all the evidence I've provided. How about backing it up? Where's the agreement you claim says that you can do it. More importantly, where's the evidence that this is common?

ALL of the evidence I've found says that it's not done except through COBRA or similar plans. All of the evidence YOU'VE presented is, well, non-existent.

 

[Zigner]

I gave you a NJ attorney who says it can't be done. I gave you two separate CA attorneys who said it can't be done. I gave you many other sites that all say it can't be done.

On your side, all you have is "I've seen it" with no documentation. You're the one claiming that it's possible - in contradiction to all the evidence I've provided. How about backing it up? Where's the agreement you claim says that you can do it. More importantly, where's the evidence that this is common?

ALL of the evidence I've found says that it's not done except through COBRA or similar plans. All of the evidence YOU'VE presented is, well, non-existent.

Misty - you need to show that it's not allowed. You are the one who is claiming it's against the law. What YOU are asking for is to be shown a law that says it CAN be done, but that's not realistic since the absence of mention in law would mean that it IS allowed.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misty - you need to show that it's not allowed. You are the one who is claiming it's against the law. What YOU are asking for is to be shown a law that says it CAN be done, but that's not realistic since the absence of mention in law would mean that it IS allowed.

You've got it backwards. My original post said:
"The other problem is that it's asking you to do something that you may not be able to do."

cbg responded:
"Once more I feel compelled to point out that in 30 years of administering employer sponsored benefits, I have yet to see a plan that did not have a provision for keeping a divorced spouse on the plan. "

I have demonstrated pretty conclusively that attorneys in several states and virtually every web site addressing the topic agrees that when a couple divorces, the ex-spouse can not be covered on the group coverage. That clearly supports my position that OP may not be able to do what her stbx is asking.

Note, also, that I've been responsible for buying insurance for employees at a number of companies. NONE of the policies ever allowed for ex-spouses to be included - which disproves cbg's implication that ALL policies have that provision.

There is a mountain of evidence stating that when you get divorced, your ex doesn't get to stay on your medical plan. See all the sites I provided - and that's just a very small subset.

If cbg is going to claim that all the evidence I've provided (including several attorneys) is wrong, she needs more than "you're wrong because I say so".

Note also that I never said it was against the law. An insurance policy could theoretically be written stating that you could insure your ex-spouse, although it would be difficult since it violates the principles of insurance(*). What I said is that it's NOT done - and we have no evidence contradicting that except cbg's claim - which has already been proven to be false.


* The entire principle of insurance (I've taken a couple of courses on the subject) involves indemnifying the insured against a financial harm. In order for insurance coverage to be applicable, it would have to be shown that the insured has some financial interest in ex's health. That could be done, I suppose, but it's a stretch. Furthermore, why would an employer wish to make a standard practice of including ex-spouses on their policy? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[cbg]

The way employment law works, in the absence of a law that says it can't be done, it can be done. There does not have to be a law stating that it can be done; if there isn't a law that specifically says it can't, then it can.

30 years of direct experience tells me that it can be done. You post excerpts from a few articles and tell me that I've been proven wrong.

Where did I say that all policies would allow it?

 

[mistoffolees]

The way employment law works, in the absence of a law that says it can't be done, it can be done. There does not have to be a law stating that it can be done; if there isn't a law that specifically says it can't, then it can.

30 years of direct experience tells me that it can be done. You post excerpts from a few articles and tell me that I've been proven wrong.

Where did I say that all policies would allow it?

You strongly implied it when I said that it MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE and you responded that in 30 years of doing this that EVERY SINGLE POLICY ALLOWED IT.

I don't doubt that it can be done. It's a stretch for principles of insurance, but it's theoretically possible. That was never in dispute.

But, your experience notwithstanding, it's the exception rather than the rule (and, based on all the evidence I provided, apparently a very rare exception).

 

[cbg]

Every single policy I have worked with has allowed it, that's true.

I also said, I am prepared to acknowledge that there may be regional differences in what is common, which should indicate that I acknowledge that it may not be true in all circumstances.

Since my experience is that it is not rare, I will only go so far as to say that YMMV.

 

[mistoffolees]

Every single policy I have worked with has allowed it, that's true.

I also said, I am prepared to acknowledge that there may be regional differences in what is common, which should indicate that I acknowledge that it may not be true in all circumstances.

Since my experience is that it is not rare, I will only go so far as to say that YMMV.

I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of those are actually 'pseudo-COBRA' clauses where the ex-spouse can be considered a part of the group, but has to have his/her own policy and pays his/her own premium rather than being included in the employee's family and covered under the employee's policy.

But since we don't have the wording of any of them, we'll never know.

 

[cbg]

I have seen those policies. And what you suggest was the case in only one of them. Unfortunately the policies are posted on internal intranets and are not accessible to the general public; otherwise I'd post links to them for you. And if I can find a way to do it for my current employer, I will anyway. Since you evidently think I'm making it up.

 

[CourtClerk]

Is the horse dead yet?