Joint life policy with critical illness

Steven1966

Hi, my former partner and I had an endowment policy in joint names with joint critical illness cover. I paid the premiums for 12 years. My then partner was diagnosed with a disease that counted for 'critical' and I claimed on the policy. the insurance company paid out in full without any problem. I believe that I am entitled to half the payout as it was joint names and I paid the premiums. My former partner claims she is entitled to all the money as it is her who has an illness. She is threatening legal action using the term 'unjust enrichment' to get me to pay her my half of the payout. Can anyone advise me if she is right?
Steven1966

opinions4u

Great question!

Instinctively I think it's a joint payout. Morally I can see your partner's point. But if the moral view is the outcome, then you should be reimbursed for premiums paid and the higher cost of replacing your own cover. Do the sums. That might not be as far off half the payout as you'd expect.

Does the original debt still exist? If so, is it still in joint names? And who lives in the property?

Why did you retain a joint policy with this person? Any specific reason, or just a "never got round to sorting it out"?

I'd suggest asking the life company what their view is. If you have a free legal helpline via an insurance policy or trade union, make a call. A free 15 minutes with a solicitor might be an alternative.

She is threatening legal action using the term 'unjust enrichment

If she'd died, you'd have got the lot.

Wikipedia defines unjust enrichment as:

n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another's expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained

Now the British legal definition may be different to this. But if you've paid the premiums should your former partner gain at your expense?

I see claim and counter claim and richer lawyers if you can't nip this in the bud early with a negotiated outcome.

Steven1966

Thank you. Your response is really helpful.

I do appreciate the 'moral' dimension.

When I said former partner, I meant that she is my former partner now but the claim was made just as the relationship was breaking up.

I will see if there is a legal advice line on the policy document but I think something else I have also may have a legal advice line. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks again, Steven1966:j

ACG

I would say 50/50 morally is right.

You wouldnt have got the money had she not been ill and she wouldnt have got the money had you not paid the premiums. As O4U says (ive said that twice today) you can see this making solicitors very rich and i bet none would do it on a no win no fee basis.

Have you given her any money so far?
Ive been threatened with court twice, both times ive said i would happily go to court however if you lose i will be counter suing for solicitors costs because i wont be using cheap ones (was worded a little more professional than that but they were £200 an hour solicitiors who wrote the letter with a fancy name and address) that was the last i heard on both occasions.