Replacing life assurance and family income benefit

OshayAway

Personally, I would have no problems with an insurer writing to my GP for medical information. If there is something specific that you feel may result in a rating, I would want that fully assessed by underwriting.

If you are referring to a medical screening, this involves measuring your height, weight, blood pressure, cotinine test if you state you are a non-smoker to confirm that) and urine test to check for blood & protein.

Is there any there that is a concern to you?

property.advert

kingstreet wrote: »

The aggregates are probably set by the life offices' reassurers, rather than internally.

A reassurer may wish to avoid taking on too big a risk where a proposer applying for five different policies with different insurers to avoid passing the medical thresholds, but the risk ultimately being carried by that single reassurer.

Your logic assumes only one re-assurer, which is not the case. It also assume all risk is re-insured, which may not always be the case. I suspect risks are repackaged and then re-insured, as are mortgages, into securitised products with tranches at varying risk levels.

property.advert

OshayAway wrote: »

Personally, I would have no problems with an insurer writing to my GP for medical information. If there is something specific that you feel may result in a rating, I would want that fully assessed by underwriting.

If you are referring to a medical screening, this involves measuring your height, weight, blood pressure, cotinine test if you state you are a non-smoker to confirm that) and urine test to check for blood & protein.

Is there any there that is a concern to you?

Tests exist for less and well beyond those you mention but the time to do a medical check up is not when you are applying for insurance. No-one would specifically request full medical screening as no cheaper premiums can be obtained. It would be illogical to do so if unnecessary.

kingstreet

property.advert wrote: »

Your logic assumes only one re-assurer, which is not the case. It also assume all risk is re-insured, which may not always be the case. I suspect risks are repackaged and then re-insured, as are mortgages, into securitised products with tranches at varying risk levels.

It was a worst case scenario. However, there aren't that many reassurers operating in the UK market so it could be possible for a proposer to hit on five life offices who use the same one.

AFAIK there isn't securitisation of risks. The life offices make their arrangements with reassurers on an individual risk basis and set their limits and information requirements accordingly.

It's a good while since I worked for a life office, so my "AFAIK" may be out of date now.

OshayAway

property.advert wrote: »

Tests exist for less and well beyond those you mention but the time to do a medical check up is not when you are applying for insurance. No-one would specifically request full medical screening as no cheaper premiums can be obtained. It would be illogical to do so if unnecessary.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. Could you clarify?

All medical disclosures and any evidence sought, whether it be application answers, doctor's report, nurse screening or full medical examination are relevant at the point of application, not claim.

For what it's worth, I've known several individuals who have requested the insurer obtains additional evidence to the application questions themselves, to ensure that they have not left something out in error that could effect a future claim. Admittedly, this is OTT and not necessary but it serves to put their mind at rest.

Personally, I think it's better to err on the side of caution than take short cuts. It would raise my suspicions if someone enquired about avoiding additional evidence at all costs, unless there were good mitigating factors.

There are different levels of medical, depending on the insurer and age / sum assured. The basic one is as I've described, nothing more.

weighty1_2

Some providers will take into account cover with other providers, some won't (Friends Life for example, unless total sum assured is >£10m)

Some companies will automatically ask for a GP report before a medical examination, some no longer go for GPR's at all unless medical disclosures dictate it is required. (Ageas, for example)

Companies use different aggregate sums assured on family income benefit plans. It's 50% with some, 75% with others.

It is relatively easy to avoid additional medical underwriting other than the application if you are loathe to undergo it and I can understand a client wanting to avoid a medical screening as this can, and has previously with my clients, brought up medical issues that they weren't aware of, however, I do not see the value in avoiding a GPR unless an application is time critical. Nobody is infallible and I'd rather a company have access to mine, or my clients, whole medical records up front rather than decline a claim, due to non-disclosure. This is especially true were clients are slightly older and may have had more periods of ill-health than younger clients.

property.advert

Just to come back to this and report that Friends Life are on 75% in respect of FIB but L&G are on a somewhat generous (purely in comparison) 50%.