Disgusting !

vax2002

Royal Liver....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-16010848

tomjonesrules

Terminal illness cover was only available for the first nine years of the policy. It is very unfortunate, but hardly 'disguting'.

ACG

Ive seen things like this before, they could argue the tumour has been there x amoutn of time with some reports from Drs. The insurer MIGHT back down and pay out.

dunstonh

It is not disgusting. It is a standard clause on most policies. Its just unfortunate timing. If you are not insured for something then the insurer isnt going to pay out.

However, what is actually disgusting is the way the Royal Liver spokesman tried to pass the buck on to the advising firm. I would like to know how they feel the advising firm could predict the terminal illness 9 years ago?

MarkyMarkD

Typical shoddy journalism. And I don't think the whole story is being told.

It's nothing to do with "having to give a year's notice" as the Mrs claims (or is quoted as claiming).

It's simply that the terminal illness cover does not apply during the last year of the policy.

Now, explain to me how the family were going to repay the mortgage in 4 months' time, when the life policy ends?

If it's an endowment policy, it will pay out and the mortgage will be cleared. Or if there's a shortfall, they will have been told about it and to make alternative arrangements many times over the past years. In many cases, you can borrow money against endowment policies - for example, to cover mortgage payments when you are ill and unable to work.

If it's a protection-only policy, they should be making repayments on the mortgage anyway.

A mortgage lender isn't going to repossess the property of someone who is dying in hospital with a terminal illness, unless there is a very good reason to do so - like the fact that there is no way the family is ever going to afford to pay off the loan in any case.

starrystarry

What's disgusting about Royal Liver following the terms & conditions of the policy?

jamesd

I suppose one question here is whether he will die before the end of the ten years and whether it will then pay out for death within the term.

starrystarry

jamesd wrote: »

I suppose one question here is whether he will die before the end of the ten years and whether it will then pay out for death within the term.

Of course it would, why wouldn't it?

longleggedhair

starrystarry wrote: »

Of course it would, why wouldn't it?

How rude, perhaps you can buy a Policy which will pay out some manners!

Bigsmak

longleggedhair wrote: »

How rude, perhaps you can buy a Policy which will pay out some manners!

How was he being rude.. He said that if he dies within the term of the policy, it will pay out.,.. What's rude about that.

No life policies will pay out on a terminal illness with less than 12 months remaining... Its because if they were to die the day after the policy ends then they policy wouldn't pay out. So the insurer is perfectly within its rights to refuse payment.

On the other hand, if they claim with 5 years to go, and they actually survive past the end of the policy, then there is no problem.

starrystarry

Thank you Bigsmak, I don't think I was rude either. I genuinely didn't understand why jamesd thought it might not pay out. (I'm a she by the way )