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

[Charlie505]

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

just out of interest.. which insurer do you work for?

Question for me I assume. I don't work for an insurer any more (and I have never worked for the insurer in question). My comments are made on a personal basis - and I am restricting them to my own experience, and information in the public domain.

[MissFM]

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

To put this in a very stark way - if you were being asked to bet your own money on a person's life expectancy, would you want to be told before you took the bet that they had been consulting their doctor about pins and needles? Of course you would - particularly if the law gave you that right (as it does).

This is such a very difficult, emotive and harrowing thread for everyone.

Charlie, you have explained the insurer POV extremely clearly and eloquently and I, for one, salute you for it - not easy to take the unpopular road but necessary to have a balanced overview for someone to do this, especially in such a reasoned and rigorous way.

Question though - going on the gambling analogy (which is surprisingly apt) - say you had a horse that was brilliant on the flat but a dodgy jumper, surely it would be unfair to alter the odds on that horse (based on its performance jumping) in a flat race? Or vice versa? Particularly after the event ie to nullify the bet? (I know this doesn't quite pan out but you get the picture)

Also on the cars thing - you couldn't just turn around if someone crashed their fiesta and say well actually you also own a ferrari which you didn't tell us about so your policy is void?

What I'm asking is: how can it be either moral or legal to take an apparently random symptom of an illness unconnected to the fatal illness and use it after the event to nullify a policy which covered the actual fatal illness?

Am very unclear as to whether this is because of the letter of the law or......?

[Inca]

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

Sorry Charlie,,didn't see your post before I posted again.
There are scenarios where yes,I can see where some insurance payouts are rightfully denied because of the 'deliberate exclusion' of ailments but we are talking about Nics case in point,there is absolutely no way on Gods green Earth that it can be justified,in my opinion,to withold paying the policy because he didn't mention pins and needles.Would an insurance company insist that a longterm migraine sufferer, who has medication from a Dr,not be able to take up insurance without a brain scan incase something more sinister is going on? That would put paid to an awful lot of women being able to get insured.
As you have probably guessed I have MS so all this does strike a very big chord with me,the fact that they are refusing to pay the policy resonates loudly because I know how carefully the medical profession steps before diagnosing such a potentially LIFE LIMITING not LIFE THREATENING disease.
Do you know that ,sometimes,the decision is taken not to tell the person concerned that they have MS on the first attack because they may be lucky enough to never have another one? Obviously the severity of the attack and other details notwithstanding (again,,personal experience).

[MissFM]

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

"However some people will want to walk past these approaches and exercise their democratic right to protest. However when you take up digital pitchforks if you are not careful you find yourself with travelling companions who don’t know where to draw the line between peaceful protest and actions that sully the reputation of your cause"

This resonates absolutely with my experience. The emotive, altruistic "headline" reason for any pressure group can hide a multitude of unintended consequences and agendas. Which is why it is so important that this debate keeps a warm heart but a cool head. If, as Charlie would appear to be saying, the injustice lies within the law as opposed to the insurance company then it needs to be addressed by changing the law. Otherwise we really are just doing the modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks etc.. It really is very necessary these days to look at any charity you donate to, any petition you sign and ensure that it not only does what it says on the tin (efficiently) but doesn't actually further an agenda that is less justifiable or palatable.

On the other hand, if the insurance people are just not honouring their contract, then they need to be made to honour their responsibilities, using the full force of the law.

[Inca]

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

I have read and digested the posts by Charlie and have read the article about Nic and nothing has changed my immediate reaction to this ,,the insurance company have copped out and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves (but they won't be) IT STINKS!! and thats my final words on this thread .

[MissFM]

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

Sorry Charlie,,didn't see your post before I posted again.
There are scenarios where yes,I can see where some insurance payouts are rightfully denied because of the 'deliberate exclusion' of ailments but we are talking about Nics case in point,there is absolutely no way on Gods green Earth that it can be justified,in my opinion,to withold paying the policy because he didn't mention pins and needles.Would an insurance company insist that a longterm migraine sufferer, who has medication from a Dr,not be able to take up insurance without a brain scan incase something more sinister is going on? That would put paid to an awful lot of women being able to get insured.
As you have probably guessed I have MS so all this does strike a very big chord with me,the fact that they are refusing to pay the policy resonates loudly because I know how carefully the medical profession steps before diagnosing such a potentially LIFE LIMITING not LIFE THREATENING disease.
Do you know that ,sometimes,the decision is taken not to tell the person concerned that they have MS on the first attack because they may be lucky enough to never have another one? Obviously the severity of the attack and other details notwithstanding (again,,personal experience).

And Inca (BTW but not just BTW) I am so, so sorry for what you are going through and so admiring of your strength xx

[MissFM]

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

sorry that was sent before your last post (and meant most sincerely)

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

Well said Inca.

When you take out an insurance policy you give the insurer the permission to access you medical records if needed, in case of any problems. Surely Mr Hughes insurers when checking on his family's claim checked his records and read "Complained of pins and needles, nothing sinister detected." This would have explained the whole thing.

The profits vs people argument is simple.. upset your customers = no customers.. no customers = no profits!

The fact is a major company has let an individual down, and people have the right to know and vote with their feet. It is appalling the company has declined to meet with the family and solicitors, something needs doing and that is the petition. It won't impress the insurance companies, but atm their behaviour is not impressing people.

[Charlie505]

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

This is such a very difficult, emotive and harrowing thread for everyone.

Charlie, you have explained the insurer POV extremely clearly and eloquently and I, for one, salute you for it - not easy to take the unpopular road but necessary to have a balanced overview for someone to do this, especially in such a reasoned and rigorous way.

Question though - going on the gambling analogy (which is surprisingly apt) - say you had a horse that was brilliant on the flat but a dodgy jumper, surely it would be unfair to alter the odds on that horse (based on its performance jumping) in a flat race? Or vice versa? Particularly after the event ie to nullify the bet? (I know this doesn't quite pan out but you get the picture)

Also on the cars thing - you couldn't just turn around if someone crashed their fiesta and say well actually you also own a ferrari which you didn't tell us about so your policy is void?

What I'm asking is: how can it be either moral or legal to take an apparently random symptom of an illness unconnected to the fatal illness and use it after the event to nullify a policy which covered the actual fatal illness?

Am very unclear as to whether this is because of the letter of the law or......?

Miss FM - thanks for your comments, and thought provoking challenges.

Looking at the horse-racing analogy first - bookies do change the odds for each horse for each race depending on the form of the horse over different distances, the ground etc. Like an insurer they are assessing each event as a separate risk. Also like an insurer they can’t change the odds in the middle of the race. If you don’t climb mountains when you apply for life insurance, but subsequently decide to climb Everest, your cover is still valid, you don’t have to tell the insurer, and it can’t change the terms. So the life insurer and the bookie assess the situation based on the information they have at the time they make the decision. As for nullifying a bet after the event, I don’t profess to know much about horse-racing but I guess if a horse is disqualified, all bets are off.

I think it is important to understand that this isn’t just about insurance. Any contract can be rendered void if it is found to have been entered into on the basis of misrepresentation. This is a key element of contract law.

Your final point is a key matter. A few years ago some insurers were thought to be requesting medical records after a claim for no other reason than to look for something that should have been disclosed at the time of application. Where a case is referred to the Ombudsman, if it is felt that this is what the insurer has done, it is likely that the verdict will favour the customer. It is now generally recognised that this sort of practice isn’t fair so agreed practice is that at the time of a claim there needs to be reasonable cause to request medical evidence.

But also the perceptional difficulty here is that when you apply for life insurance the insurer is taking on the total risk of your death from innumerable possible causes (or combinations of causes). Just because a person dies of one thing it doesn’t mean that the insurer wasn’t having to take the risk (and its cost) for everything else too. So in looking at a case retrospectively we are in a kind of tardis situation- where the insurance was covering the many things that might have happened as well as the thing that actually did, and the terms of the contract needed to have reflected that.

[Charlie505]

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

Sorry Charlie,,didn't see your post before I posted again.
There are scenarios where yes,I can see where some insurance payouts are rightfully denied because of the 'deliberate exclusion' of ailments but we are talking about Nics case in point,there is absolutely no way on Gods green Earth that it can be justified,in my opinion,to withold paying the policy because he didn't mention pins and needles.Would an insurance company insist that a longterm migraine sufferer, who has medication from a Dr,not be able to take up insurance without a brain scan incase something more sinister is going on? That would put paid to an awful lot of women being able to get insured.
As you have probably guessed I have MS so all this does strike a very big chord with me,the fact that they are refusing to pay the policy resonates loudly because I know how carefully the medical profession steps before diagnosing such a potentially LIFE LIMITING not LIFE THREATENING disease.
Do you know that ,sometimes,the decision is taken not to tell the person concerned that they have MS on the first attack because they may be lucky enough to never have another one? Obviously the severity of the attack and other details notwithstanding (again,,personal experience).

Inca
We are all rather shooting in the dark here because we don’t know the full circumstances of Nic’s case. However in response to your migraine example, whether an insurer decides to a) decline to enter the contract b) defer c) charge an additional premium or d) exclude a condition, is a matter for it to decide based on the evidence its underwriters decide to request. But it must be given the opportunity to assess what it wants to do, based on a full disclosure by the applicant.

I started off my career as an underwriter. I would ignore migraine disclosures unless there was something else associated that concerned me. Pins and needles would have caused me to request a GPs report straight away – although I might well have let it go if the declaration was that it was diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome. That said, I stopped underwriting many years ago and practice may well have changed with medical advances.

I am very sorry to hear that you have MS Inca. I wish you well and I apologise if my comments have caused any offence in that regard. I do understand the variable course of the condition and that it may proceed very slowly indeed. Underwriters will look at MS differently for life cover as compared to Critical Illness cover. For Life cover it would probably be insurable at an increased premium. But for Critical Illness cover, where there is a payout on diagnosis of listed conditions (including MS) it would not be insurable. I understand that Nic Hughes had a Critical illness policy.

Your comments have caused me to look at my own Critical Illness policy which I took out in 2006 (with Friends Provident) prior to when I started to get pins and needles myself. MS is a specified critical illness on the policy. I also have the questions I was asked and the answers I gave. I was directly asked whether in the previous 5 years I had ‘numbness, loss of feeling or tingling of the limbs or face, loss of balance or co-ordination’. I answered ‘no’. Had the answer been otherwise I don’t expect I would have been insured unless and until it had been checked out to the insurer’s satisfaction. I can’t say whether Nic had the same form to complete, but it is the same insurer and (apparently) the same type of cover.

[Charlie505]

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

I don't know whether you are a customer of Friends Life - but actually I am (with a Critical Illness policy). Much as I sympathise with the family I will not be 'voting with my feet' over this. Quite the reverse - I am pleased that they are not giving in to a campaign that is trying to avoid a fair an independent review of the case by the Ombudsman. Justice is served by due process in this country - not by rallying a mob to try to force your way.

[Inca]

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

I would only take offence at someone being deliberately rude or spiteful Charlie,,and you did neither so no apology needed but thankyou

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

I don't know whether you are a customer of Friends Life - but actually I am (with a Critical Illness policy). Much as I sympathise with the family I will not be 'voting with my feet' over this. Quite the reverse - I am pleased that they are not giving in to a campaign that is trying to avoid a fair an independent review of the case by the Ombudsman. Justice is served by due process in this country - not by rallying a mob to try to force your way.

I used to be.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

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

Thank you so much for your continued support for the #NicsFight campaign. It has been extraordinarily successful in highlighting the appalling treatment of one family by an insurance company.
As we move into 2013 Friends Life is still insisting the case goes all the way to the Financial Ombudsman.
We are working hard on the legal side, preparing to fight all the way but there is still time for Friends Life to do the right thing and avoid putting the Hughes family through more anguish with a protracted legal process.
Friends Life may be choosing to ignore the pleas individuals and ongoing bad press but perhaps they will pay attention to their big corporate customers. One of the largest is Tesco, which run all of its insurance offers through Friends Life.
Today, Tesco is using Twitter to try to get #TescoTweets trending, offering to answer any Tesco questions. We have a very big question for them: do they want to continue to be associated with an insurance company branded 'cruel' and 'highly distasteful' in their treatment of a cancer victim?
Please, take a moment to send Tesco a tweet today, using #TescoTweets to ask them to put pressure on Friends Life to do the right thing in 2013.
Click here to send a tweet.
Friends Life are hearing this, and will hear even more clearly when their huge corporate customers start getting nervous about their own brands too.
Thanks for helping us continue the fight in 2013,
Kester
PS. If you're not on Twitter you can call Tesco Life Insurance on 0845 366 6781.

[MissFM]

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

Not intending to cause any offence at all but, having read and reread everything in the public domain including this forum, I really think this petition is misguided and not the right way to achieve a just resolution for this family, who clearly deserve one.

To repeat what has been suggested above: surely it would make more sense to instead ask for a small donation from all who are sympathetic (which will go beyond those who have signed the petition) to be administered by the family solicitor or other if he/she is unwilling? In view of the huge sympathy and support, this would go way beyond the sum that would be due from the insurers. (ie 50,000 x a min £2.00 makes up the full sum payable according to reports and it should come to far more, particularly in view of the celebs, politicians etc. who have signed up).

That would then relieve immediate hardship for the family and in view of the level of support also finance further recourse to the due processes of the law in bringing Friends Life to account. The extra momentum, money and energy could go towards campaigning to make the law fairer and more transparent on this type of insurance, or a fund for other families caught in the same trap - a fitting legacy surely?

If what you are saying is true, the Ombudsman would anyway find in favour of the family and Friends Life would have to pay out but according to due legal process rather than what is perceived by some to be mob rule. The excess funds could then be disposed of according to the wishes/conscience of the family.

That would certainly avoid all appearance of rabble rousing triumphing over lawful process.

This is such an emotional subject and I do hope and trust that it is possible to put an alternative view, in a spirit of complete sympathy and goodwill, without causing any hurt.