Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benefit Coverage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Benefit Coverage

    If spousal support is being paid for say 5 to 20 years is the payor required to continue coverage for medical, dental, extended benefits as long as spousal is being paid to the payee?

    Or is that benefit coverage will only be required until a divorce order is received, aka coverage must still exist while two people are separated? Is there a limitation on it (like 1 year) if either person doesn't file for divorce after the 1 year separation limitation?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
    If spousal support is being paid for say 5 to 20 years is the payor required to continue coverage for medical, dental, extended benefits as long as spousal is being paid to the payee?

    Or is that benefit coverage will only be required until a divorce order is received, aka coverage must still exist while two people are separated? Is there a limitation on it (like 1 year) if either person doesn't file for divorce after the 1 year separation limitation?
    Most benefit plans only allow you to cover a spouse, so they end when the marriage does, when the order is complete.

    Comment


    • #3
      Check with the administrator of your plan. DTD is right, most will not let you carry anyone except a (current) spouse or a dependent. Until the divorce order is signed, your ex is your spouse; once it's signed, she's not. If your SS agreement includes benefit coverage (not all of them do), you might need to make arrangements through a third party carrier like Blue Cross. However, don't bring this up unless the other side raises it as an issue.

      Comment


      • #4
        So there is nothing in the SSAG that requires the supporter continues benefit coverage until spousal ends?

        Say after 20 years of marriage a diabetic unemployed person has their marriage end and cannot afford medical coverage as needed. Would the ex spouse, who is required to pay spousal support indefinitly not be required by law to support them with benefits along with spousal support?

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think this is required by law. It's not the former spouse who is providing the benefits - the former spouse is just paying the premiums. There's nothing requiring an insurance company or an employer to provide services to the former spouse of a plan member following separation, because the insurance company or employer is not a party to the separation agreement between the spouses.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
            So there is nothing in the SSAG that requires the supporter continues benefit coverage until spousal ends?

            Say after 20 years of marriage a diabetic unemployed person has their marriage end and cannot afford medical coverage as needed. Would the ex spouse, who is required to pay spousal support indefinitly not be required by law to support them with benefits along with spousal support?
            There is nothing that benefit plans continue. One of the parties can ask, as my ex did, but there is nothing that forces that, and my ex backed off.

            Comment


            • #7
              If your order states you have to maintain benefits for as long as you can or are married - then you have to.

              If it's not in there, you're free to terminate benefits at any time.

              Comment


              • #8
                there is nothing in the SSAG that requires
                Nothing in the SSAG requires anything. They are substantially different from the federal child support guidelines.

                In the FCSG, obligations are set out in a way that they are often taken to be imperative, unless an exception is granted.

                The SSAG are a tool to help parties/judges determine the amount and duration of spousal support. If you decide on something that is outside of the SSAG, that is your personal decision.

                In sum: your obligations are whatever is set out in the court Order or agreement. If you can provide benefits at little or no cost, it would seem polite to continue to do so regardless of whether you have an obligation. This is for two reasons:
                1 - financial benefit to the other parent of your children can indirectly benefit your children
                2 - if you haven't settled matters, hostile actions usually ensure you will spend more money than you need to in reaching the settlement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hello I'm trying to formulate a clause in my separation agreement that states that the Wife will maintain the Husband on her benefits but as the plan only covers 80% of the cost the Husband will have to pay the 20% difference. Any example out there? thank you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have much experience with insurance companies so I can comment here. DTD is correct. Post separation, almost all insurance companies will not allow a former spouse to be on a benefit plan. They will only allow the employee to be covered and the children. So it is pointless to ask for this in a separation agreement because it can't be done. What should happen is this. The spousal support payor should pay premiums to an independent insurer to get the spousal support recipient equivalent benefits. Then when spousal support is calculated, there is a section in the Divorcemate program which allows a deduction for the premiums - last time I saw the program it was under "cash flow adjustments". This deduction for the spousal support payor enables the cost of the premiums to be shared between both spouses. The basic problem is that most lawyers are too dumb to enter the information or they enter it in the wrong place on the Divorcemate program. I can show you an example of how it should appear if it is entered properly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      Check with the administrator of your plan. DTD is right, most will not let you carry anyone except a (current) spouse or a dependent. Until the divorce order is signed, your ex is your spouse; once it's signed, she's not. If your SS agreement includes benefit coverage (not all of them do), you might need to make arrangements through a third party carrier like Blue Cross. However, don't bring this up unless the other side raises it as an issue.
                      Most insurances won't let you cover anyone but your spouse. But, the name of the spouse is self-declared. While the benefit provider may state this, they can't find out what the actual relationship to the employee who is covered due to privacy laws.

                      So, unless you remarry or request that coverage be terminated for your spouse, you can potentially cover their benefits for as long as you are employed there.

                      I administer a company benefit plan and I know a few employees do cover their former spouses. And, why wouldn't you if there is children in the mix? Healthy parent is to the benefit of both parties.

                      Comment

                      Our Divorce Forums
                      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                      Working...
                      X