Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 March 17

= March 17 =

Does one's insurable interest in bodily safety extend to the regeneration of body parts?
Here's California law in regards to insurable interests:

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/insurance-code/ins-sect-10110-1.html

(Among other things)

"(b) An individual has an unlimited insurable interest in his or her own life, health, and bodily safety and may lawfully take out a policy of insurance on his or her own life, health, or bodily safety and have the policy made payable to whomsoever he or she pleases, regardless of whether the beneficiary designated has an insurable interest."

Does one's insurable interest in bodily safety extend to the regeneration of body parts? Or does it only cover bodily damage?

For instance, if you purchase an insurance contract with a payout which activated if one of your body parts (such as the vas deferens) regenerates, and this contract ends up in court, would the courts declare that you actually have an insurable interest in the regeneration of this body part and that thus this contract is valid and enforceable? Or would they declare this insurance contract to be null and void as a result of the lack of insurable interest in this contract? Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A note on a slightly "meta" level: You've piped "insurance" to "insurable interest", but in fact we have an article on insurable interest, which is much more to the point of your question.  Pipes are bad, m'kay?  Avoid pipes wherever you can; redirects are better, provided they go to the target you intend. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this advice. I have now fixed this. Basically, there was no page for "insurable interests" and thus I thought that there was no page for "insurable interest" either but unfortunately didn't bother to actually check for this. Anyway, I have now redirected the "insurable interests" page to the "insurable interest" page. This seems like the best move here, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like partly a question of whether the regeneration is beneficial or adverse to one's life, health, and bodily safety. Going further into it sounds a little too close to legal advice so I'll stay away.  173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The regeneration could be viewed as being beneficial in the sense that it will once again make one's body work properly. (I believe that there is even a brand of philosophy created by Aristotle which says that the morality of the use of a body part is whether or not it is actually being used for its proper purpose. This philosophy would certainly consider body part regeneration to be a good thing since it will restore one's body to the way that it is supposed to be/function.) However, sometimes--as in the vas deferens context--having one's body work properly isn't always beneficial for oneself. Futurist110 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually one insures against losses, not gains. So if the regeneration is purely a good thing, it's hard for me to see an insurable interest. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP is worried that it will grow back, and doesn't want that. At the time of any surgery, there should be a form to sign which advises you of possible consequences or side effects of the surgery, including the probability of it recurring down the road. However, what the OP should do is see a lawyer, or at least an insurance expert, rather than depending on random advice from strangers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the OP's hyper-fixation on accidentally causing pregnancy, I'm not sure that's the professional assistance I would suggest. Matt Deres (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)