|
Critical illness Insurers under fire
Critical illness insurance again came under fire in recent
With critical illness insurance, before it will pay out the insurer will want to satisfy itself that the claim is valid in three primary areas:
It's in everyone's interests to ensure that the diagnosis has been made correctly - so there's rarely any conflict between insurance company and policyholder on that matter. It's the other two validation areas where conflict can arise. Depending upon the wording on the policy's schedule of insured illnesses there can sometimes be some illnesses which fall into a grey area - it can be argued that they are insured and it can be argued that they aren't. Now it's not an issue if the insurer believes an illness is covered but the policyholder doesn't - the claim is never made and the issue never surfaces! But the sparks fly when the policyholder thinks he is insured but the insurer disagrees. Such a case comes before the Courts in the next few weeks. David Hawkins from Staffordshire is suing Scottish Provident under his £400,000 policy. Basically, the policyholder's medical advisers believe his illness is covered by the terms of the policy whereas the insurer's medical advisers disagree. If Mr Hawkins wins, the press will have a field day and the critical illness industry will suffer a further knock it can ill afford. Another writ, filed in the High Court, points up the problems when an insurer thinks that the claimant mislead them on the original application form thereby obtaining insurance cover on false pretences. Thomas Welch form Kensal Green, north London, is suing Scottish Provident for £206,800. The issue goes back to 2000 when, two years after taking up the critical illness policy, it was confirmed that he had testicular cancer. Scottish Provident refused the claim because of "non-disclosure", saying that Mr Welch had not been honest about his smoking habit. He admits that he did smoke earlier in his life but insists that he had long since quit by the time he applied for the insurance and as such, did complete the form honestly. We presume that the case in court will centre upon whether Mr Welch accurately answered the questions about smoking. Most insurers define "a smoker" as someone who has smoked or taken nicotine products within the last 5 years. If Mr Thomas had said "yes", to this type of question, then his insurance premium would have been as much as 65% more than he would have been charged as a non-smoker. We guess that his lawyers may try to argue that he omitted information by simple error and that the past smoking was irrelevant to his testicular cancer. An interesting issue. We shall follow the case and report the outcome.
Did you Know? Did you Know? Did you Know? |
|
| The URL for this web site is owned by Draco Internet Marketing Ltd. Alliance Internet Ltd under agreement with Draco Internet Marketing Ltd, uses, runs, manages, operates, designs, and produces copy and displays information on this web site. Alliance Internet Ltd is an Appointed Representative of Financial Connexions Ltd. Financial Connexions Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. |
|