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

[Inca]

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

Pins and needles weren't even part of my MS diagnosis,,hadn't even noticed them (if they were there)...flags went up in my case because I fell off a 10m diving board cos I failed to judge where the end was (eyesight playing goonies),,then years,,and Im talking 7 years..I got battered with symptoms which led to an E E G..MRI,lumbar punctures..brain scans ,,you name it,I had it. I was also told (on diagnosis) that most people with MS are rarely told on the first attack,because it may never rear it's ugly head again.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

The doctor they contacted has confirmed, the "pins and needles" were nothing to do with Niks condition and were put down to a seperate, DISCLOSED illness..

FL havent got a leg to stand on.. sooner they do the right thing and pay out the better.

[michael]

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

Victory for family denied cancer claim payout for father


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...r-claim-payout

[Celestine]

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

Fantastic News!! Congratulations to the family of Nic Hughes and also a huge Well Done to Kester Brewin for orchestrating the campaign. Though in reality, it was the Ombudsman's decision that brought about this rightful result. It's just a shame that Friends Life has tarnished its previously good reputation by acting in such an appalling manner.

[Inca]

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

at bloody last !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is fantastic news

[Sapphire]

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

Yayyyyyy excellent.

[TUTTSI]

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

I am absolutely thrilled for the family of Nic, they have suffered far to much and should also be properly compensated financially for the agrevation and the enormous emotional time that they have been through in addition to the payout under the terms of his policy from FL.

[enaid]

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

So pleased with the outcome for the family and all concerned, it is just marred by the fact they had to battle so hard and for so long to get something rightfully theirs.

[leclerc]

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

Great result! It does show that sometimes the ombudsman does make the right decision and does not serve the financial institution

[Charlie505]

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

Sorry to be the dissenting voice on this again but this should not be a cause for wild celebration.

On a personal level I am pleased for Nic Hughes's family - they were innocent parties who are now more financially secure
I am also pleased that the campaign failed - and instead due process prevailed quickly when it was (eventually) used - we should remember that before joining webmobs that do ugly things.

However this is a day that may well cost the consumer dear - honest people should be very worried if this is a licence to lie about medical history and lifestyle and get away with it. It just means that it will be more difficult and intrusive to get insurance and the costs to ordinary people will rocket.

The details of the decision will come out shortly but the process (while undoubtedly more legitimate than digital pitchforks) is rather concerning. I have said before that FOS is a largely unaccountable organisation that is not bound to follow the law and where there is no appeals process - rather strange in a democratic society. So in this case an adjudicator put to one side a law (The Consumer Insurance Act) newly passed by Parliament which says that an insurer can reject a claim where the customer has lied in response to direct questions. I believe that staff at the insurer genuinely thought that this was a simple case of someone caught out for being dishonest - so they will be surprised at the decision.

So why did FOS decide for the family when industry insiders considered the case to be a slam dunk in the opposite direction? Well there have been a few decisions like this one recently and I think that the decision will be a technical one rather than for the reasons that the campaigners cited. I don't think the detailled FOS analysis will have said that Nic Hughes behaved reasonably or that the answers he gave were not relevant - I think they will have said that the insurer found him out in an unfair manner by getting lifestyle information from the doctor at the point of claim.

What this implies is that if you lie to an insurer - particularly about something like alcohol or smoking they need to catch you out before taking the case rather than at claim. This is completely different to what the law says and makes sensible insurance virtually impossible at a reasonable price. So the question for FOS (if they are prepared to discuss it) is whether they are in effect overturning the will of Parliament and making up a new law that will be hugely detrimental to honest people seeking insurance.

Just imagine. You say to an insurer that you don't drink when in fact you are a heavy drinker. The insurer will have to assume you are lying and either charge everyone a price that reflects that, or they will have to get medical reports/examinations for everyone - which will also increase the price as well as annoy everyone.

So lets be happy breifly for the Hughes family, and particularly happy that order prevailed over chaos - and then be very worried about what this means for consumers.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

no charlie, lets be happy that a bully got beat, that people power worked and that nic had such a fantastic bunch of friends

DELIGHTED by the result!!

Hopefully now big business will realise that the little bloke in the street is more powerful than they reckoned!!

And as for the whole insurance premiuims will go up.. yeh ok Charlie, here's a glass of champers, relax enjoy life and be happy that the right result occured!!

JUSICE FOR NIC FINALLY!!!

[Inca]

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

Sorry Charlie,but I really don't give a rats backside as to WHY the FOS overturned the decision,I'm just totally relieved that FL were shown to be the charlatans they are by refusing to cough up and by making the last few months of Nics life even more devastating than they needed to be.
Nic was dying.......dying and leaving a young family not only devastated but financially crippled. He could not concentrate on building memories for them because he was forced to fight for their monetary future.
He didn't LIE..he had no reason to,he wasn't going to be around to gain from it.
Maybe this ruling will make getting insurance a tad more difficult and cost a few bob more but the fight for customers by the insurance companies will keep the prices competitive so it's not all doom and gloom.
One would have to be completely heartless and devoid of a moral compass to kick up a stink and blame Nics family for any increases.
I said from the start the whole affair stunk,and I said I would stand by any decision the FOS made,and I;m very very happy they made the right one (IMHO),,FL tried to 'widen the scope' of the policy and it failed. Happy Days!!

[TUTTSI]

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

Reading the Guardian article about this again it seems that the policy was indeed cancelled before Nic's death, so he was aware of this before his death. It also states that there was an ex gratia payment made to the family which again I can only assume that it was the return of his premiums when they cancelled his policy. Thankfully, they are not going to minus this from the payout of £100k + interest and they will be allowed to keep it.

Whatever the outcome of how the FOS came to their decision it was a really good day for Nic's family and it will give them some financial help at a time when I am sure that they needed it most.

Charlie, campaign or not this was a dreadful case for young person to be taken from us leaving a very young family - my heart goes out to the family as they have now had to suffer the losing of their dear one plus the uphill battle with FL it must have been the most horiific time for this family.

[Celestine]

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

I am also pleased that the campaign failed - and instead due process prevailed quickly when it was (eventually) used - we should remember that before joining webmobs that do ugly things.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone declare themselves pleased that such a campaign 'failed'. It didn't, it threw the poor treatment of Nics family into the wider spotlight, offering them valuable support and validation at a dreadful time in their lives.
I said in my response to the victory at post 169 "Though in reality, it was the Ombudsman's decision that brought about this rightful result."

In my opinion, the campaign went hand in hand with 'due process'. We've seen dreadful Ombudsman results in the past and I like to think that the 'campaign' ensured a well qualified and experienced assessor dealt with this case to be absolutely certain it was done correctly.

Webmobs that do ugly things huh? I don't think this campaign came even close to such conduct and at all times represented a force for good and fairness.

[Charlie505]

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

The campaign certainly did fail, and fail utterly - it tried to force the result it wanted and some of those associated with it did do some pretty hurtful things to many ordinary people who just happened to work for the insurer. The reason it did so was that it had been advised that the case wasn't strong enough for due process. If it had gone to FOS last year (as the insurer proposed) the case would have been sorted a long time ago, but the campaign felt that a impartial assessment by FOS was a last resort so they only took that route when the steam had run out. Now, thankfully people will see that such tactics don't work and when they have a dispute with an insurer they will follow the right process.

This didn't start with Friends decliing a claim (a decision any other insurer would also have made under the circumstances - and regularly do). This started because a person decided to answer a couple of very straightforward 'yes or no' questions dishonestly. That wasn't his family's fault - and I am happy for them now, but whether or not Nic was a nice guy (and I am sure he was) please lets not keep thinking he did nothing wrong - he did, and FOS will not have said otherwise.

As a parallel we have become the whiplash capital of Europe with such an epidemic of people claiming (with help from their lawyers) they suffered terrible injury from 5mph crashes that it puts £100 on the cost of everyone's insurance. This is what happens when people think defrauding insurers is a victimless activity. I am not implying for a moment that this was Nic's intention but it is where the road leads to when the principle that you must not lie to an insurer is not upheld.

This web community is called Legal Beagles - from which I assume that its participants believe in the rule of law. This is the most fundamental building block of a civilised society and the only thing that stands between us and anarchy. I note that no one on this site disputed the wisdom of the terms of the new Consumer Insurance Act (see my other thread) - so it strange to see it applauded when they are ignored by an unaccountable adjudicator. So this talk of 'people power' is specious - people power on the question of insurance was exercised in Parliament, enshrined in the Act, and followed by the insurer.

What I have found interesting about this debate is that when I discuss principle, and consumer benefit generally - no one disagrees, or is particularly interested. But as soon as the principles have a face and a name the perspective changes.

For me this was never about an individual case - I always said I would be happy to send a cheque if Nic's family lost. All the best to them and I am sure I would have liked Nic if I had met him. But the principles that allow millions to benefit from insurance every day are something I have devoted my entire working life to - and I will keep doing whatever I can to see them upheld.

So - the Nic Hughes case is now in the rear view mirror (and we will need to agree to differ on it) but the questions of principle remain - and I will leave them with you ...

Is it OK for someone to deliberately answer a straight question from an insurer incorrectly?
If the insurer finds the person has lied to a question that was material to the contract - should it be able to cancel the contract?