Disgusting !

jamesd

starrystarry wrote: »

Of course it would, why wouldn't it?

There were two conditional statements there:

1. whether he'd die before the end of the term.

2. whether the policy has an exclusion for death due to terminal illness that started within the last twelve months of the policy. As well as the one that blocks payment on diagnosis within the last year. The policy may be written to block all payments due to terminal illness that's diagnosed within the last year whether it results in death during that year or not.

Bigsmak

starrystarry wrote: »

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 )

Sorry, its an internet thing.. I assume everyone is male on forums.. It stops all those embarresing situations where you think you are chatting up a 30 year old attractive lawyer and when you meet them for a date its really a 14 year old spotty boy confused about his sexuality and willing to try anything.... but I digress*





* I am joking ... .i knew it was a 14 year old boy.......






* Again joking... I've got to stop trying to be silly.... :beer: I have never met with boys (young or old) from the internet

weighty1_2

Bigsmak wrote: »

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.

Just to clarify there ARE some providers who pay out on TI within the last 12-months of the plan. Ageas don't have this clause and if I recall correctly I'm pretty sure that Scottish Provident don't either.

Going back to the OP's point, when they still had an open book I always found Royal Liver a very fair company to do busy with. The problem is that a company who has closed its book to new insurance business doesn't have its reputation to worry about so this can always potentially lead to borderline claims being declined which may have been accepted when open to new business.

Personally, as a friendly society I would hope that this would never happen to Royal Liver.

zenmaster

I am really struggling to get my head round this.

Surely it's common sense that, whilst a premium is paid, claims under the insurance for which the premium is charged must be valid.

He's paid for 10 years cover and should receive just that.

I'd be well pissed off if I wrote my car off and called my insurer only to be told that I'm only actually covered for the first 9 months of the year.

jamesd

He didn't pay for ten years of fatal illness cover, because that wasn't the product he bought. He's after a free increase in his cover based on having a sympathetic story.

I'm not keen on the concept of different end dates, though. It invites consumer mistakes like this one.

dunstonh

Surely it's common sense that, whilst a premium is paid, claims under the insurance for which the premium is charged must be valid.

Correct. If you are paying the premiums then you get the benefit of the terms offered by the policy.

He's paid for 10 years cover and should receive just that.

And he is getting that.

I'd be well !!!!ed off if I wrote my car off and called my insurer only to be told that I'm only actually covered for the first 9 months of the year.

Not comparable. He applied for 10 years life assurance and he has 10 years life assurance. However, he is not dead yet. The policy had a feature that if you were diagnosed with a terminal illness in any but the final year of the policy, it will pay out early rather than you have to wait until you die.

Terminal illness is typically defined as you being dead within 12 months. Hence why it doesnt go beyond the penultimate year. If it did, it would be effectively adding a potential one year to the policy term for some people.

Remember that this is first and foremost a life assurance plan that pays out on death. He chose not to have critical illness cover included and it is not an incmoe protection policy.

MarkyMarkD

Well explained, dunstonh. The terminal illness benefit is just an acceleration of a payment which would be due anyway, in the event of death within the lifetime of the policy, to make life easier during the final months of life.

It might seem harsh that it doesn't pay out if the illness is diagnosed in the last 12 months, but that's because it is not certain whether the person will or won't die during the term. If there is more than 12 months to run, the assumption is that death will occur within the term, and the customer's family might as well have the money earlier than later.