 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
With regards to the tag asking for a more global view on the subjet, I fear this is an American-only subject. I do believe this is illegal in most jurisdictions.Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find anything saying it's illegal elsewhere, but it's frowned upon by several international regulators, as can be seen from the new links I added. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I’m reviving this old discussion topic to note that this issue does not appear to be limited to the American insurance business.
- I don’t understand the concepts well enough to adequately summarise them or assess their importance, but it appears that there are significant differences between American courts and those of other common-law jurisdictions as to who may be entitled to take out a life-insurance policy on a given person.
- This US-published journal article compares US regulation in this area to developments in Australian and UK jurisprudence.
- The broader legal doctrine is also discussed in this article I found on Austlii. Whether this apeciric article is a sufficiently reliable source is unclear, but Austlii is the largest and most widely-used database of legal information in Australia.
- Any editor looking to add more international perspectives to the article here may find these sources to be useful starting points. Foxmilder (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)