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

[leclerc]

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

One more (purely legal) question:

All this publicity would be considered prejudicial to a fair trial in a court of law - would that be applicable to the FOS or not?

At the moment the answer is no because to be honest, until I read this thread I had not heard of this case so realistically it's not prejudicial.

[Charlie505]

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

Miss FM - you are making some good points here which I may be able to assist with.

FOS won't be prejudiced by these blogs. In fact they don't even need to be bound by the law, or by regulation. they are an independent arbitration service that offers a more approachable (and cheaper) alternative to the courts for the inevitable disputes that arise. (As you can imagine they are rather swamped with PPI cases at the moment, but they do have people with expertise in this type of case too).

I am afraid you must blame me for raising the MS issue. The reason I did was that 'pins and needles' was being presented as trivial excuse to avoid paying a claim when in fact it is an indicator to be taken very seriously by an underwriter, and it would have meant that Friends would not have entered the contract had they known about it. The point has assumed an importance in this thread because it is often not understood that the things that didn't cause a persons death are every bit as relevant as the thing that did - the insurer was in a contract to cover them all and the terms reflected that. It has been a common argument in this case to say 'but Nic's death was nothing to do with 'pins and needles', but that unfortunately is not the way insurance can ever work - anywhere.

[Charlie505]

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

Miss FM - I should probably add to my last post that when I said that FOS are not bound by the law - what this means is that they are less interested in what is strictly the case in law, than what is actually a fair outcome.

It does not preclude the customer going to the courts if still dis-satisfied - though I think that would be very rare.

[TUTTSI]

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

Maybe it is worth noting that it appears from a ruling today that the courts can in addition to a FOS award give additional awards http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...n-to-FOS-award

[Charlie505]

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

Puff - I would draw a very clear distinction between this case and the example of the Pakistani child. People power is laudable when fair legal process is not available - but when independent and legitimate process is available, but avoided, there is nothing noble about the activity.

Rumour has it that some ordinary people connected with the insurer are now getting their facebook accounts targeted by protesters. If that is true then I would be imagine that Nic Hughes would not have wanted such behaviour in his name. I wonder if campaign supporters feel any responsibility for that, or are taking any steps to guard against it?

[MissFM]

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

Maybe it is worth noting that it appears from a ruling today that the courts can in addition to a FOS award give additional awards http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...n-to-FOS-award

thanks Tuttsi but I can't get access to that page

[TUTTSI]

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

It may be one in VIP only - sorry hun I did not spot that.

This is the link to the article http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/la...063822.article

thanks Tuttsi but I can't get access to that page

[MissFM]

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

Miss FM - I should probably add to my last post that when I said that FOS are not bound by the law - what this means is that they are less interested in what is strictly the case in law, than what is actually a fair outcome.

It does not preclude the customer going to the courts if still dis-satisfied - though I think that would be very rare.

Thanks Charlie

If that is true (and it is the impression I had from reading some of their case histories and general criteria) then it's most encouraging, particularly in this case....isn't it?

[leclerc]

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

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

The above is the judgement referred to in the link given by tuttsi to mortgage strategy article....

[MissFM]

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

It may be one in VIP only - sorry hun I did not spot that.

This is the link to the article http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/la...063822.article

Thanks and honestly Tuttsi - that route (the FOS route) really does seem like the best one for the family ........doesn't it??? I really wish one of you (so intent on the petition) would explain clearly and logically (because I do get the anger and emotion) why it isn't.

[MissFM]

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

I think there is a gremlin on this page - have had so much trouble posting at all and am now not allowed to give any thanks - so thanks to you all FWIW!

[Charlie505]

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

I have had a further look at the legal situation on this...

The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act was passed on March 8th 2012, and it comes into force in March this year. It deals specifically with what information consumers must provide when they buy insurance. It takes away the consumer's duty to volunteer all material information - and instead it imposes a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation.

If a consumer does breach the duty not to misrepresent then one of two situations can occur:

If the misrepresentation is reckless or deliberate the insurer can refuse the claim by treating the contract as if it had never existed.

If the consumer merely answers questions carelessly, the insurer's position depends on whether it would otherwise not have entered into the contract (or on different terms).

So, in the Nic Hughes case we are under the old rules where he had a duty to disclose everything necessary. But, let's say that it could be argued that Friends should be expected to adhere to the new law, even though it hasn't yet come into force. What difference would that make?

Well, I haven't heard anyone say that Nic didn't misrepresent his situation (although there is of course disagreement as to why that should matter). We are given to understand that one of the reasons his claim was rejected was that he wrongly answered a question about pins and needles.

But was it 'reckless or deliberate'? Well if Nic was the nice guy that we are told, we should start with the assumption that this was not the case. So the insurer would not, under the new Act have an automatic right to dismiss the claim.

Which then brings us to the second point - if it was just a careless error the question is whether the insurer would have entered the contract in any case on those terms, had it known about the symptoms. It says not, and from looking at my own Friends Critical Illness policy, that would seem difficult to argue with.

However some do want to argue with this - even though it is new and primary legislation passed by a duly elected Parliament. That's OK - we have a parallel process that looks more at natural justice or fairness. That's the Ombudsman (FOS).

I have to say that if the case went to FOS and it was found in favour of Nic Hughes's family, no one would be more content than I - due process would have served up an outcome that would relieve the family and maintain the integrity of the system on which we all depend.

But there are some who don't want legal process or natural justice either. They just want what they want. The ends justify the means. But who is responsible for the crowd? Who decides where to draw the line in its behaviour? And do we really want to live in a country where matters are decided this way?

[Charlie505]

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

Thanks Charlie

If that is true (and it is the impression I had from reading some of their case histories and general criteria) then it's most encouraging, particularly in this case....isn't it?

Depends on your perspective MissFM. Insurers often find FOS infuriating - finding against them for reasons that they find difficult to fathom. But from the consumer's perspective that's a good thing - a fiercely independent adjudicator. There are no 'slam dunks' with FOS but Friends must be feeling pretty confident if they are openly saying they would be happy for FOS to decide it.

Here is how this might pan out (perhaps). The campaign eventually realise that Friends can't back down on this, and so they go to FOS. FOS look at the case (probably including evidence that none of us on the web know about) and decide in favour of Nic's family (Good for family, Charlie proved wrong). Or they decide in favour of Friends, and the insurer then decides (having made its point, and resisted the campaigners) to make a quiet contribution to the family (Good for the family too).

[MissFM]

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

I wish someone would actually read the FOS stuff I posted - because it really does seem to be between "reckless" non-disclosure and "inadvertant" nondisclosure - the first being an automatic dismissal of the whole caboosh and the second leading to many and variable quite creative solutions - intrinsically fair to all solutions. I don't think anyone (unless there is something horrid hidden) thinks there is any real possibility of "reckless" non-disclosure here.

[MissFM]

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

Sorry Charlie - posted just when you did - so as leclerc says FOS a win-win situation for the family - and as far as I can see for everyone else too!