Basically, I have previously expressed concern that a child support insurance contract (unfortunately) might not be held up in court (or, alternatively, might have its total payouts be limited by court order) on grounds of public policy. Meanwhile, while someone previously suggested insuring the vas deferens itself (for an extremely large amount of money, of course) rather than insuring child support, I fear that this might not work either.

Basically, here is where my fears in regards to this come from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest

"Insurable interest exists when an insured person derives a financial or other kind of benefit from the continuous existence, without impairment or damage, of the insured object (or in the case of a person, their continued survival). A person has an insurable interest in something when loss of or damage to that thing would cause the person to suffer a financial or other kind of loss."

Since having the vas deferens regenerate isn't a case of a loss or damage to the vas deferens (quite the opposite, in fact!), a regeneration of the vas deferens doesn't appear to meet the criteria above. Frankly, that would be like someone who previously lost a part of his or her finger purchasing insurance which would only activate if that part of his or her finger actually grew back; indeed, where exactly is the loss involved in that?

Also, even if a regeneration of the vas deferens met the criteria above, there appears to be another issue to consider here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest

"People have an insurable interest in their property up to the value of the property, but no more. The principle of indemnity dictates that the insured be compensated for a loss of property, but not paid more than what the property was worth. A lender who grants a mortgage on the security of a house has an insurable interest in that house, but only up to the amount outstanding on the loan."

Granted, this pertains to property; however, I don't see why exactly this principle can't likewise apply to vas deferens regeneration. To elaborate on this, even if vas deferens regeneration was viewed as an insurable interest, I fear that a judge might cap the total amount of payout that one can receive from such insurance in order to avoid a situation with unjust enrichment; after all, a judge might believe that a large insurance payout in such cases would be a case of unjust enrichment because it would fail to take into account the joys and benefits of having and raising a child (and thus be an affront to the dignity of the child).

Indeed, judges unfortunately have a history of either refusing to award childcare costs or limiting childcare costs in cases of wrongful conception and wrongful birth (in order to avoid creating an affront to the dignity of the child and in order to take the joys and benefits of having and raising a child into account):

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861&context=law_lawreview

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3612&context=cklawreview

Thus, why exactly couldn't judges also apply similar principles to insurance contracts which pertain to child support and/or to the regeneration of the vas deferens?

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?