My buddy is getting ready to close on a business. The present proprietor wants my buddy to continue to pay his family’s insurance premiums through the business, while he reimburses my friend. Something fishy to me. What are the opinions of those with insurance/legal experience?
My buddy is getting ready to close on a business. The present proprietor wants my buddy to continue to pay his family’s insurance premiums through the business, while he reimburses my friend. Something fishy to me. What are the opinions of those with insurance/legal experience?
I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt.
But I don't see a problem with it, IMO it's not much different than a retiree still getting his/her HI through their ex-employer.
My buddy is getting ready to close on a business. The present proprietor wants my buddy to continue to pay his family’s insurance premiums through the business, while he reimburses my friend. Something fishy to me. What are the opinions of those with insurance/legal experience?
How many retirees pay 100% of their retirement benefits back (under the table?) to their former employers?
None. Most of the time the former employers pay all or part of the retirees HI.. That's my point. The retirees still get group rates and benefits from their former employer.
Some citation is required for that (bolded above) assertion. That may be true for most public and/or union employees, possibly even some very large employers, but I doubt that most employers (which are small businesses, BTW) do that.
My point has nothing to do with the size of a company. My point is some companies keep their former employees in their group HI 'pool'. So I can understand why this former owner wants to stay in his former business group pool.
My point was that "some" is not "most". I can also understand why someone wants to save money, but the owner of a business asking for a benefit that they did not offer to their own ex-employees is a bit much.
Why are you saying his ex-employees were not offered group HI? If he's asking to stay in his former business pool, sounds like he had a group HI when he owned the business too.
Because the prior owner was offering to pay the new owner back (under the table?) for offering this (new?) benefit. Had it been "company policy" to pay ex-employees such benefits that would not have been necessary.
My buddy is getting ready to close on a business. The present proprietor wants my buddy to continue to pay his family’s insurance premiums through the business, while he reimburses my friend. Something fishy to me. What are the opinions of those with insurance/legal experience?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?