circumstances, a spouse can be required to maintain life insurance for the purpose of protecting the financial well-being of the other spouse. Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1989). Under the facts of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring that the former husband maintain a life insurance policy to secure the alimony awarded to the former wife. However, the amount of the coverage which the former husband was ordered to maintain lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis — the record contains no evidence of the former husband’s insura-bility at the time of the final hearing or the cost of the proposed insurance and, thus, the former husband’s ability to pay that unspecified cost. See Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Further, as in Merkin v. Merkin, 804 So.2d
recognizing that family court may under special circumstances require a supporting spouse to secure an alimony obligation with a life insurance policy holding government could be liable for breach of a contractual obligation to purchase insurance for plaintiff holding that an order requiring a party to purchase life insurance to secure a support obligation must have the requisite evidentiary basis and reversing for further proceedings to reevaluate the life insurance requirement set forth to secure child support obligations holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates holding that where lender financed collected and retained one years premium on credit life insurance for borrower it assumed a contractual obligation to obtain credit life insurance for such borrower and to apply the amounts so received to credit life insurance and  it stood in a fiduciary capacity towards the borrower to see that the amount so charged collected and withheld were actually applied to obtaining and purchasing such insurance