tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Friday, December 27th, 9:33PM

Insurance

rss
Latest Headlines

Clients complain: Adviser should have told us to obtain notes

A client's complaint that their insurance adviser or insurance company should have told them to request their medical notes when they took out a policy has been dismissed by the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman.

Thursday, December 20th 2018, 3:00PM

The couple applied for a range of insurance products, including standalone medical cover, in 2011.

The woman made a claim in 2017.

During the assessment of the claim, the insurer obtained her medical notes.

It retrospectively added an exclusion to her medical cover, on the basis that she had failed to disclose her history of lower back pain.

The couple complained on the basis that the insurer should have requested their notes before the policy began.

Alternatively, they said, their adviser should have told them to get the notes.

The IFSO case manager said the onus was on the client to give the insurer their medical information.

Two other underwriters who were presented with the case said, had they been given the same information, they would have applied an exclusion to the policy.

The case manager said it was material and the insurer was entitled to rely on the non-disclosure clause to alter the terms of the policy

In relation to the adviser's obligation, the IFSO case manager said it was reasonable to expect the adviser to tell a person completing an application about their duty of disclosure, even if there was no statement about it included at the start of the application form.

But the case manager did not believe that there was any active obligation for a financial adviser to specifically advise an applicant for insurance to obtain a copy of medical notes, provided the applicant had been adequately warned about the disclosure obligations.

In this case, there was evidence that the couple had received a warning.

They also complained about a delay in adding their son to their medical policy.

They said they asked the adviser to do so in 2012 but it did not happen until 2013.

When they tried to claim for a tonsillectomy for him in 2015, they were turned down because it was a pre-existing condition.

They said, had the adviser added him when asked, that would not have happened.

IFSO said there was no evidence of that 2012 meeting and so the adviser could not be held responsible.

 

Tags: IFSO insurance

« Not acceptable that ACC doesn't cover illness: OECDIt's time to celebrate insurance and Christmas »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

No comments yet

Sign In to add your comment

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Insurance Briefs

Partners exits Adviser Support Programme
Partners Life has moved its Adviser Support Programme to a third party compliance provider.

Apex Advice buys life business
Auckland-based Apex Advice has acquired a well-established insurance advice business.

Chubb's latest champion
Young maths prodigy takes out actuarial award.

New book: Unlocking group insurance
Christchurch adviser Corey Williams has released a new book helping advisers and employers put group insurance schemes in place.

News Bites
Latest Comments
  • The good guys get told off
    “Very prudent points as always @JohnMilner. Whilst I don’t disagree with the process, I question any advantages from the...”
    3 days ago by Pragmatic
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Hope you have a good recovery Phil. Interesting points 1.Box ticking already happening with SOA 's that look identical...”
    5 days ago by Very Frustrated Adviser
  • [The Wrap] The year that was - and what may happen next year
    “Nice summary Phil. In short: . Consumers will expect more from the industry for less . Advisers will be increasingly time...”
    5 days ago by Pragmatic
  • The good guys get told off
    “I can't quite reconcile the rationale, or lack thereof, with the comments so far. Pathfinder were found to have made misleading...”
    7 days ago by John Milner
  • The good guys get told off
    “As a follow on to this conversation: I'm assuming that the Regulator will be consistent by 'naming and shaming' the other...”
    8 days ago by Pragmatic
Subscribe Now

Cover Notes - Specific news aimed at risk advisers

Previous News
Most Commented On
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox  |  Disclaimer
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com
x