Corporate-Owned Life Insurance: Ethical Or Exploitative?

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is an insurance policy taken out by companies on their employees, typically senior-level executives. The company pays the premiums and is the beneficiary, receiving the death benefit if the employee dies. While COLI offers financial protection to companies, its ethical implications have been widely debated. Critics argue that it is immoral for companies to profit from the death of employees, while employees' families do not directly benefit. The practice has been labelled dead peasant insurance due to cases where companies insured low-level workers without their knowledge or consent. However, proponents argue that it is necessary for companies to protect themselves from economic loss and that it can be used to fund retirement plans and protect against the loss of critical employees.

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is a common practice

COLI is generally used to protect the financial interests of the company, and it can also be used to fund supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs). One of the main reasons companies purchase COLI is to benefit from the tax advantages of life insurance. Death benefits are not taxable, and investment earnings on the policy's cash value can grow tax-free or tax-deferred.

While COLI can provide financial protection for companies, it has also been the subject of ethical debates. Some argue that it is immoral for companies to profit from the death of employees, while employees themselves or their families do not directly benefit. From a Kantian framework, questions arise about reciprocity and fairness, the deception of employees, and the generation of mistrust.

Due to the ethical and legal controversies surrounding COLI, rules have been tightened. Congress has placed limitations on how companies can administer COLI policies, including informing employees when they are insured and obtaining their written consent. Additionally, tax rules for COLI policies have become stricter, and several criteria must be met for them to be tax-advantaged.

COLI is widely known among advisors but kept quiet by interested parties

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is a type of insurance policy taken out by companies on their employees, typically high-ranking executives. The company pays the premiums and is listed as the beneficiary, receiving the death benefit if the employee dies. The practice is controversial from an ethical standpoint, as it raises questions about reciprocity and fairness, the deception of employees, the generation of mistrust, and the use of an employee's life as a means to profit.

While COLI is widely known among advisors, it has largely been kept quiet by interested parties until recently. A high-profile story in The New York Times brought it to the attention of the public, sparking immediate condemnation from critics who argued that it is immoral for companies to profit from the death of employees, while the employees themselves do not directly benefit.

This controversy has led to increased scrutiny of COLI practices and efforts to address ethical concerns. In 2006, Congress tightened the rules on COLI policies, limiting their tax advantages to policies taken out on the company's highest-paid 35% of employees. Additionally, companies must now inform employees and obtain their written consent before taking out a COLI policy on them.

Despite the ethical concerns, some argue that COLI is ethical and provides financial protection for companies, especially in the event of the death of a key individual. The practice is also regulated and subject to strict tax rules that vary by state.

COLI is purchased by firms on employees in whom the firm has no insurable interest

Corporate-Owned Life Insurance (COLI) is a life insurance policy that is purchased by a corporation for its own use. The corporation is the beneficiary and an employee or group of employees is listed as the insured. COLI is typically purchased for senior-level executives, whose deaths might have serious financial implications for the company.

However, there have been cases where firms have purchased COLI on employees in whom the firm has no insurable interest. This means that the company has no demonstrable reason for holding a life insurance policy on that employee, as their death is unlikely to cause a financial loss for the company.

In the past, some companies indiscriminately insured their entire employee base, rarely getting the employees' permission to do so. This practice, known as "dead peasant insurance", drew widespread criticism for allowing companies to profit from the deaths of ordinary employees, whose families received nothing.

From an ethical standpoint, purchasing COLI on employees in whom the firm has no insurable interest raises several moral questions. For example, it brings up issues of reciprocity and fairness, the deception of employees, the generation of mistrust, and the use of an employee's life as a means to profit.

Due to the controversy, Congress tightened the rules on COLI policies in 2006. New regulations require companies to notify employees when they want to take out a policy on them and obtain their written consent. Additionally, employers must also get written consent to continue the policy after the employee leaves the company. These regulations aim to protect employees and ensure that companies cannot profit from their deaths without their knowledge or consent.

COLI raises moral questions from a Kantian framework

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is a type of insurance policy where a company takes out life insurance on its employees, typically high-ranking executives, and pays the premiums. If the employee dies, the company receives the death benefit, not the employee's family or heirs. This practice has been criticised as immoral and unethical, particularly when companies purchase policies on low-level employees without their knowledge or consent, which has led to the derogatory term "dead peasant insurance".

From a Kantian framework, COLI raises several moral questions and concerns. One key issue is the principle of reciprocity and fairness. In this scenario, the company profits from the death of its employees, while the employees themselves do not directly benefit. This lack of reciprocity and fairness can lead to a breakdown in trust between the company and its employees.

Another Kantian concern is the potential for deception and the use of employees' lives as a means to profit. In the past, companies have purchased COLI policies on low-level employees without their knowledge, which can be seen as deceptive and unethical. This practice treats employees as mere means to the company's financial gain, rather than respecting their intrinsic value as human beings.

Furthermore, COLI policies can be seen as a violation of the principle of autonomy, as employees may not have a choice or a say in whether their company takes out a policy on their lives. This lack of consent further contributes to the breakdown of trust and can lead to feelings of exploitation.

While companies argue that COLI is necessary to protect their financial interests, particularly in the event of the death of a key executive, the ethical implications cannot be ignored. The controversy surrounding COLI has led to increased regulation and stricter rules, including requirements for employee notification and consent. However, despite these regulations, COLI continues to raise complex moral questions, particularly from a Kantian perspective, that must be carefully considered by companies and policymakers alike.

COLI is subject to strict and complex rules

Corporate-Owned Life Insurance (COLI) is subject to strict and complex rules. In the United States, COLI is regulated at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation set rules regarding bank-owned life insurance (BOLI). BOLI is a type of COLI where the purchaser of the policy is a bank.

COLI is also subject to state regulation, like other forms of insurance. Additionally, these policies must adhere to the Financial Accounting Standards Board reporting guidelines. The rules and regulations surrounding COLI aim to ensure transparency and protect the insured individuals.

In 2006, Congress tightened the rules on COLI and BOLI policies in response to the "Dead Peasant Insurance" controversy. This controversy arose when it was revealed that some companies were insuring their employees indiscriminately and profiting from their deaths, without the employees' knowledge or consent. As a result of this controversy, several key changes were made to the regulations surrounding COLI.

One of the key changes is the requirement for companies to inform employees when they want to take out policies to insure them and obtain their written consent. Additionally, employers must also get written consent from the employee if they want to continue the policy after the employee leaves the company. Furthermore, Congress limited the tax advantages of COLI to policies taken out on the company's highest-paid 35% of employees.

These regulations aim to address the ethical concerns surrounding COLI and ensure that companies act in the best interests of their employees while still allowing them to protect their financial interests.

Frequently asked questions