Death/disability insurance due to accident/illness. Is it useful?

Dear all,

For a few months now, I have owned my main home and I am solely responsible for the repayment of the mortgage interest in the eyes of the bank.
Since my wife and I are getting married this year and my salary is substantially higher than hers, I was wondering if it would be wise to take out insurance for death/disability due to illness/accident.

The thought is that, should something happen to me, the mortgage costs could still be covered and, possibly even in case of disability, that the amount received from the insurance could cover the mortgage amount.

I have made some comparisons and it seems to me that CSS and now VIAC typically offer this type of insurance without being linked to a third pillar.

I don’t have any particular illnesses or risks, so I was wondering if such insurance would be useful, and if so, with which company would you recommend taking out such insurance? Specifically, what is your opinion and/or experience on this subject?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

First question: what is covered by your pension fund?


I see that the pension fund also covers these same risks in the form of pensions. I can therefore imagine that your question was rhetorical and that my initial question is therefore superfluous.
Am I right :smile: ?

No tricky questions this time. Yes, a pension fund is mostly there to provide you with a pension, but they also include death and disability insurance. Before thinking about any additional insurances, the first question to answer is how much is already covered by your pension provider.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback.
In my case the amount covered is relatively low as I am in my early 30’s and therefore in the “linear” salary increase phase.
For example, my current cash value is almost equal to the insured amount, which indicates that my salary has evolved well over time.

So the reasoning this time is mainly fiscal if I deduce your answer:

  • I would like to buy back the policy now in order to increase the sum insured and thus cover the risk in a better way (at the expense of a less interesting tax system because the horizon until retirement is still far away).
  • Let things happen and make the purchases later, when the retirement age will be closer, at the expense of a lower coverage.
  • Fill the “gap” via a specific insurance and keep the tax optimization potential for an age closer to retirement by accepting that the amount paid via the insurance is considered as lost (because it is never recovered).

Well then it looks like you have decided already. One more point that goes in the same direction: when you are younger, a life insurance is cheaper.

Arent usually disability and death pensions from the pension fund usually a percentage of the insured salary, which is the same for all persons under the same plan?

1 Like

I haven’t made any decisions, I’m trying to weigh the pros and cons of one solution or the other (maybe my previous text hinted at some things if so mea culpa) :sweat_smile:.

If you have or plan to have children, one question could also be : if the worst happens (death of yourself or your wife), will it be possible to share the wealth, as required by law or by will, without forcing the surviving spouse to sell the home in order to get cash to distribute ?
Money from a death insurance can be useful for that.

1 Like