Life insurance for only 10 years

miccahotpants

Hello. My wife and I (both 33) are just about to buy a new house, which means we have to change our life insurance policy. The policy quotes for a 35 year decreasing life cover seem very expensive. I was just wondering if it was a bad idea to instead do life cover for 10 years decreasing instead and then review? I understand that premiums are meant to go up as you get older, but as our mortgage decreases too surely it makes sense to review your life insurance cover regularly anyway as our liabilities will decrease. And it is likely we will move again in 10 years so is it worth still applying for the full 35 years or going for 10?

I guess I'm just wondering is there a good reason not to do this or is it simply that as you get older your premiums go up so the logic is jump on a policy that doesn't get reviewed now and then when you're 50 the policy seems super-cheap?

Hope someone can shed light.
Mike.

dunstonh

I was just wondering if it was a bad idea to instead do life cover for 10 years decreasing instead and then review?

Yes. In 10 years time your health may be very different and you may find getting life assurance is harder or impossible.

I understand that premiums are meant to go up as you get older, but as our mortgage decreases too surely it makes sense to review your life insurance cover regularly anyway as our liabilities will decrease.

The pricing of a decreasing term assurance reflects the reducing amount.

and then when you're 50 the policy seems super-cheap?

at 50+ the cost of life assurance is higher and certainly not super cheap.

Nearlyold

If you mortgage is for longer than 10 years the life cover on a 10 year Decreasing Term policy would be reducing faster than the debt on the mortgage leaving you with a shortfall in life cover