Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

[MissFM]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Inca
I think we may have covered this earlier in the thread - but the form I am quoting from is roughly the same vintage as the one Nic will have completed (granted though, it may not be exactly the same). The point about innocuous symptoms is actually straightforward - it isn't trivial if you thought it important enough to consult your doctor about it. And as far as Nic not being here to answer questions - he was still alive when he started campaigning, but a plaintiff who is deceased is something the law has to deal with all the time anyway.

We aren't going to agree on the Nic Hughes case Inca. If you think 'it stinks' then I respect your opinion - but I don't think that moves us forward. At some point the Nic Hughes case will conclude but the broader issue remains and I think it is this:

Regardless of what the law says – is there generally a case to be made for insurers to take a different approach to non-disclosure on application forms – and what specifically should that approach be? That is the question I would like to ask to those interested in this discussion – and it might be worth starting a new thread on it.
To elaborate on this a bit...
If someone omits a material fact or tells an untruth – should the insurer always ignore that and pay up anyway? If so - would you be prepared to pay higher insurance premiums to cover that approach?
If not - what process or criteria would you use to separate the honest mistakes from the deliberate liars (or would you allow both?) How could you ensure that this would apply consistently and fairly to all customers? What should the appeal process be?
There is a lot of interesting stuff underlying this case – and would be good to get some thoughts on whether/how there could be reform of current practice.

Yes, you should start a thread on this Charlie - PLEASE do!

[Charlie505]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

I see that the Nic Hughes campaign has now decided to submit their case to FOS. A 'colossal' submission they call it.

I am glad they have finally decided that following due process is the best way to proceed, but I can't say I am suprised. The web campaign had no chance of success, and in the absence of new stories to feed the media, interest has predictably waned.

I hope that the word 'colossal' doesn't mean that they are sending in thousands of opinions from the blogosphere - because if they do that they will seriously undermine their case. It will show that they are still labouring under the misapprehension that public opinion trumps law. FOS will decide this on the facts - and the facts alone.

I hope Nic Hughes's family wins their case - but I think on the evidence it is unlikely. I hope I am wrong for their sake but for reasons I have given before, I don't think their case is a strong one. It is worth noting by the way that for Critical Illness cases FOS upheld about a third of complaints in the last year. In the current year the percentage is significantly lower.

Of course there will be spin to accompany the submission. If the case is won, the campaign will maintain that their efforts paid off (when in fact they will just have prolonged the period the family will have waited for its money). If the case is lost, they will say that it shows FOS is in the pocket of the industry.

Whatever happens I think it could be argued that Friends Life will have won. If they had given in to a web campaign they would have risked being faced with the same phenomenon for every disputed case in the future - let alone the re-opening of past cases. I doubt if they would mind financially if they lose (they have already said they will pay out if that happens), but the dispute will have been resolved the right way, rather than by mob rule and for insurers as well as consumers, that is a good thing.

But Nic Hughes's case is just one of many. There is likely to be over a thousand CI complaints to FOS this year. So the issue is really about whether there should be changes to the approach to non-disclsoure. (I have started a separate thread on this as a sort of informal consultation).

And Inca, yes ...I know ...you still think it stinks!

[Inca]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Ok,,even though I will always think it stinks.............I'm glad it has gone to FOS,,as you quite rightly say Charlie,,due process should have been and now is being done.I hope and pray on everything I hold holy their claim is upheld but I'm prepared for the worst....Such a tragic time for his family,despite all the bluff and bluster,one must not forget they are the bereaved in all this and it's their lives that have been irrevocably changed forever.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Hi Charlie

None of us have seen the evidence... so it is very hard to judge, it will depend on how the question is asked on the form, whether it was a deliberate avoidance or a genuine mistake, this is where I feel the FOS will have to decide.

The families solicitor must of by now seen the evidence and would have thought if it were a cast iron case why have they NOT gone straight to the courts?

I do hope that Nics family can be fully paid out but it will largely depend on the evidences presented to the FOS and how they perceive what is before them.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

it should never have got so far, the undisclosed "symptom" had nothing to do with Mr Hughes passing, it was a one off and was something he probably never gave a second thought, this is absolutely disgusting, and personally I think the company should have the decency to pay up and save some face.

Even John Lewis are saying they should pay out!!!

[TUTTSI]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

John Lewis are fine ones to talk hun, my friend has had an accident in one of their stores not a big injury and they are NOT the nicest of people to deal with in fact DON't have an accient in JL cause they do not play nicely they do not return calls, they do not respond in fact they are as far as I can see the worst company to deal with on PA issues.

It is not for John Lewis to say if they should be paid or not they should get their own in house sorted first.

Undisclosed symptons.... if the question was actually asked on the proposal form, then Nic should have answered it truthfully. If it was an obscure question and he overlooked the importance of this particular disclosure then of cause it matters but the FOS can rule in the families favour.

It is exactly the same on a car proposal.... example:- if you do not answer questions like if you have ever had any convictions and you say NONE, but the truth is that you had a say a speeding conviction which you did not disclose, well this will then void your policy if in fact it is found out after an accident that you lied/mislead the insurer on the proposal form, the policy will then be cancelled and you could end up with not only costly repairs for yourself but if the accident was your fault you could end up paying for the other persons repairs as well.

We would all like Nics family to receive this money from this policy - but rules are rules and you have to understand that signing a declaration that all the facts are true and they are not then you have obtained insurance by deception.

it should never have got so far, the undisclosed "symptom" had nothing to do with Mr Hughes passing, it was a one off and was something he probably never gave a second thought, this is absolutely disgusting, and personally I think the company should have the decency to pay up and save some face.

Even John Lewis are saying they should pay out!!!

[Charlie505]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Puff - we’ll see if you are right. You know I don't agree with your position, but ultimately FOS will decide. But I don't get the 'should never have got that far' thing. There will always be disputes in life – every day. When they happen you need an efficient way of dealing with them. In financial services it’s simple, it’s called FOS. It has ‘got this far’ because the campaign has tried to game the situation for months. My guess it is because their lawyer has told them they are on shaky ground – perhaps it's sound advice legally but I think it naive in PR and business terms.

It’s a shame it has taken this long to get this far – a shame for the family, and a shame for the innocent members of staff who (allegedly) have received threats and had their social media accounts attacked. Those who join a campaign should check their travelling companions.

Tuttsi - you are asking why the solicitor (having seen the evidence) hasn’t taken this straight to court. Well I suspect he/she has told them that Friends are within the law (in fact also within the new tougher law which takes effect in March). I am no lawyer but I think the way it would work is that Friends would hire an expensive lawyer, the costs would be large, and if the family lost they would be liable for the costs of both sides. So the family would be better settling out of court – and they probably thought a web campaign would pressure Friends to do so.

FOS is different – the insurer will pay for the costs of the case even if they win (not something insurers think fair). It is an inexpensive means of dispute resolution and the family has nothing to lose – because they could still go to court even if FOS finds against them. What is more, FOS doesn’t have the same burden of proof that a court would. They don’t care whether the law has been breached – they are judging what they think is fair as a resolution.

[Inca]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

(still stinks but...) if in the awful awful event of FOS chucking out Nics claim and the family get diddly squat,I for one would be more than happy to contribute to a fund for them,,and would hope everyone else who has campaigned would be happy to as well. It wouldn't be charity,it would be all of us putting our money where mouth is and ensuring this family receive a lump sum which would go ,in part, to easing the financial crisis they have been placed in by FL's refusal to pay out on a technicality.FL saw a way out and took it,,and yes,,that will always stink and I hope their business suffers a major loss in customers because anyone with any sense would run a million miles from them. If they have sacrificed Nic's familys welfare over the slightest little thing,what could they do to others????

[Charlie505]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

I agree on the 'fund for Nic' point - but why just Nic? There will be something in the region of 800 non-dislosure complaint for Critical Illness rejected by FOS this year - I am sure many of them are heart-breaking situations. The difference is that Nic's friends have attracted public attention with their campaign - but that doesn't itself make his case more deserving of of our symapthy than all the others. There is a danger that the media-savvy get better outcomes, which doesn't make for a fairer society (and that isn't a comment specific to any particular subject or industry).

But as far as I am aware FP have no more than their share of these cases. That doesn't make it OK, but if you withdraw your business from one insurer as a result of a media campaign on a particular case ...how do you know that you won't be giving it instead to an insurer with a worse track record of claim complaints?

Not easy, and argumentative as I have been on this thread, I do think that the media (for all their manifest sins) have a significant role in provoking companies to improve practice.

[Inca]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Yes,,there are many many folks like Nic,,but it's Nic's case we know about.If more people shouted louder maybe these insurance companies wouldn't get away with screwing people over as much as they do,

[MissFM]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

I agree on the 'fund for Nic' point - but why just Nic? There will be something in the region of 800 non-dislosure complaint for Critical Illness rejected by FOS this year - I am sure many of them are heart-breaking situations. The difference is that Nic's friends have attracted public attention with their campaign - but that doesn't itself make his case more deserving of of our symapthy than all the others. There is a danger that the media-savvy get better outcomes, which doesn't make for a fairer society (and that isn't a comment specific to any particular subject or industry).
This is a similar argument to the one LEA's use to not give children the educational support to which they are legally entitled (ie if they get it someone else won't, as there's only so much money in the pot). Or the NHS arguments for rationing necessary care, etc., etc.. In my (unfortunately rather extensive) experience in this area it is a fallacious argument because getting a fair outcome, either financially or otherwise, is, in practice, like milking a cow - the more you do it , the more you get - and the more becomes available to others (the converse being equally true).
But as far as I am aware FP have no more than their share of these cases. That doesn't make it OK, but if you withdraw your business from one insurer as a result of a media campaign on a particular case ...how do you know that you won't be giving it instead to an insurer with a worse track record of claim complaints?

Not easy, and argumentative as I have been on this thread, I do think that the media (for all their manifest sins) have a significant role in provoking companies to improve practice.

Constructive argument is a good thing FM

[Charlie505]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

I'm not making a 'rationing' argument about the Nic Hughes situation FM. I'm not saying that there is only so much generosity to go around. The point I am making is that one case out of hundreds has been selected for public support - by virtue of our digital media-obsessed culture.

The friends of Nic Hughes have done well to start a media campaign - but they have been unable to sustain it on a single individual. I would have been more sympathetic if the campaign was on the broader issue, so that many more stood to gain. (I still might not agree, but I would certainly respect that).

If the campaign became a catalyst to raise standards generally then that would be a worthwhile ambition - but I don't think there is any statistical justification to single out FP. If people are genuinely concerned about all the other Nic Hughes type cases out there too, then it is surprising that they are not doing something about it. And if they want to do something about it (or any other issue) then it will take facts and evidence - not emotion.

I have some experience of lobbying and I would suggest that the golden rules for success are: 1. Get to an issue as the debate is beginning, not when it's too late 2. Build a cross sector consensus amongst those with influence and 3. Put forward constructive proposals.

In the Nic Hughes situation the campaigners are failing on number 1 because they are showing no interest in the issue of non-disclosure itself. They are failing on number 2 because they have no one of any influence on side, and they are failing on 3. because they are not putting forward policy proposals.

That's OK if you want to be a shouty pressure group - but you'll never be invited to discuss your views with people who can influence the situation.

[Charlie505]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Consumer Insurance Act comes into force tomorrow - new rules to provide more clarity to customers about what they need to disclose to insurers.

Expect comments in the press this weekend to include reference to the Nic Hughes case.

[leclerc]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Here is the wording of the Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents

[TUTTSI]

Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy

Thanks Leclerc... this is very useful to have the legislation. It should be stickied somewhere where people can refer to if they need to.

I just took a brief look at the legislation and 2c & d are the ones i believe may apply to Nics case. I await to see the press comments over the weekend in relation to Nic as they could be relevant.