policyholder

Protect insurance policyholder money efficiently instead of sucking as much profit out of the market as possible.

The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return Well, now, that's a healthy, non-perverse set of incentives.

Clearly in that case, Wal-Mart being a policyholder had no impact on the employees having their own policies at the same time.

This system of Sidecar paying 80% / policyholder paying 20% worked so well for the individuals, but perhaps it’s not a viable business model?

I also know almost nothing about insurance other than what I've observed as a policyholder.

It's even simpler to have the driver be the policyholder.

The federal government requires them to send you a letter if, say, your check went to the wrong address because you have the same name as some other policyholder.

That said, I'm not opposed to smokers paying higher premiums — but that practice already exists, based on policyholder disclosure, or rescission in the event of fraud.

Most of the other dangerous, life-threatening activities you're thinking of are more likely to simply kill you than to require an insurance company to spend 10 years paying 150x the costs of a typical policyholder.

What would be a minor fenderbender in a car leading to minor whiplash, where the policyholder was trying to see how many neckrubs he could get covered, on a motorcycle can be them picking gravel out of your road rash and involve broken bones that don't want to mend right and require surgery weeks later.

> "The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return — though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money."

Loaded language aside, I don't see any other arrangement making sense than the driver being the policyholder; after all, (s)he can be driving for any number of companies, so whose insurance would pay if there was an accident during "Period 1"?