Question about health insurance of spouse in a divorce

[mamabear70]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I am confused about something and hope someone here can help. My husband, whom I separated from last May, used to carry the children and me on his medical and dental health insurance plan. When he left, he dropped the three of us from his plan, and began paying only for himself. Luckily, my employer offers health insurance benefits, so I purchased a plan for the kids and me, and it has been this way since then.

I filed for divorce in January and we are still trying to work out a mutually agreed upon separation agreement. Initially, when it came to the health insurance, we were going to just be status quo: he'd continue to pay for his, and I would continue to pay for mine and the children. Suddenly, he is now proposing that under the M.G.L. ch 175, sec 110I General Laws: CHAPTER 175, Section 110I
that I now put him on my health insurance plan and pay for it. As I read the law, it states:

Section 110I. (a) In the event of the granting of a judgment absolute of divorce or of separate support to which a member of a group hospital, surgical, medical, or dental insurance plan provided for in section one hundred and ten is a party, the person who was the spouse of said member prior to the issuance of such judgment shall be and remain eligible for benefits under said plan, whether or not said judgment was entered prior to the effective date of said plan, without additional premium or examination therefor, as if said judgment had not been entered; provided, however, that such eligibility shall not be required if said judgment so provides. Such eligibility shall continue through the member’s participation in the plan until the remarriage of either the member or such spouse, or until such time as provided by said judgment, whichever is earlier. The provision of this section shall apply to any policy issued or renewed within or without the commonwealth and which covers residents of the commonwealth.

(b) In the event of the remarriage of the group plan member referred to in subsection (a), the former spouse thereafter shall have the right, if so provided in said judgment, to continue to receive benefits as are available to the member, by means of the addition of a rider to the family plan or the issuance of an individual plan, either of which may be at additional premium rates determined by the commissioner of insurance to be just and reasonable in accordance with the additional insuring risks involved.

I interpret this to mean that the law requires the ex-spouse to be on my plan if he was on it before the divorce. However, as I mentioned, he is not on it now, and in fact, the kids and I were on his before the separation.

My questions are a) is my interpretation above correct? and b) Can I argue that since he dropped us when he left, I am the one that should be kept on his plan, as it was before? (I'm actually just interested in keeping it as it is now, and NOT having to pay for his, but am curious...)

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

I am confused about something and hope someone here can help. My husband, whom I separated from last May, used to carry the children and me on his medical and dental health insurance plan. When he left, he dropped the three of us from his plan, and began paying only for himself. Luckily, my employer offers health insurance benefits, so I purchased a plan for the kids and me, and it has been this way since then.

I filed for divorce in January and we are still trying to work out a mutually agreed upon separation agreement. Initially, when it came to the health insurance, we were going to just be status quo: he'd continue to pay for his, and I would continue to pay for mine and the children. Suddenly, he is now proposing that under the M.G.L. ch 175, sec 110I General Laws: CHAPTER 175, Section 110I
that I now put him on my health insurance plan and pay for it. As I read the law, it states:


I interpret this to mean that the law requires the ex-spouse to be on my plan if he was on it before the divorce. However, as I mentioned, he is not on it now, and in fact, the kids and I were on his before the separation.

My questions are a) is my interpretation above correct? and b) Can I argue that since he dropped us when he left, I am the one that should be kept on his plan, as it was before? (I'm actually just interested in keeping it as it is now, and NOT having to pay for his, but am curious...)

Thanks in advance for any help.

He is the one who acted improperly by removing you and the children from his employer's health insurance. You are by no means required to insure HIM at this point.

 

[cbg]

a) is my interpretation above correct? No, it's not. I am quite familiar with that law on both a personal and a work-related level. What the law is saying is not that you are required to cover your ex-spouse, but that your employer is prohibited from saying that an ex-spouse who was covered prior to the divorce is not eligible for coverage immediately after the divorce. The divorce does not AUTOMATICALLY make the ex-spouse ineligible. (great simplification, but that's what it boils down to). Whether you do cover him, or he you, is between you, your attornies, and the judge. The mandate is on the employer's plan and their definition of a covered dependent, not on you. Or him.

b) Can I argue that since he dropped us when he left, I am the one that should be kept on his plan, as it was before? (I'm actually just interested in keeping it as it is now, and NOT having to pay for his, but am curious...)

Sure you can. If you want to remain on his plan.

 

[mamabear70]

He is the one who acted improperly by removing you and the children from his employer's health insurance. You are by no means required to insure HIM at this point.

Thank you. That was my gut feeling, but I wasn't sure. Thanks again.

 

[mamabear70]

a) is my interpretation above correct? No, it's not. I am quite familiar with that law on both a personal and a work-related level. What the law is saying is not that you are required to cover your ex-spouse, but that your employer is prohibited from saying that an ex-spouse who was covered prior to the divorce is not eligible for coverage immediately after the divorce. The divorce does not AUTOMATICALLY make the ex-spouse ineligible. (great simplification, but that's what it boils down to). Whether you do cover him, or he you, is between you, your attornies, and the judge. The mandate is on the employer's plan and their definition of a covered dependent, not on you. Or him.

b) Can I argue that since he dropped us when he left, I am the one that should be kept on his plan, as it was before? (I'm actually just interested in keeping it as it is now, and NOT having to pay for his, but am curious...)

Sure you can. If you want to remain on his plan.

LOL...And THAT'S why I'm not an attorney. Completely misiniterpreted the law. Again, thanks for your help.