Re: Help us make Friends Life pay out Nic Hughes' critical illness policy
Yes, you should start a thread on this Charlie - PLEASE do!
Originally posted by Charlie505
View Post
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.
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.
Comment