Critical Illness, Self Assurance, etc

OshayAway

Tykelass wrote: »

The thing that still niggles re this IFA was his instruction to me to not declare when taking out these policies, that I'd had a restriction placed on a similar policy I'd had in the past. I honestly thought this was wrong but went with his advice. It still niggles at me now - what if I needed to claim and they refused because I'd not declared this? I've been tempted before to contact the providers and discuss this with them but never never end up doing anything as it just seems like a load of hassle which could potentially end up having an even worse effect, like nodody every giving me cover again.

What was the disclosure?

Tykelass

Prior to taking these policies out, I had had a similar policy before and the provider put a restriction on barring any claims for anything to do with my ears. This was because I'd had 2 attacks of an inner ear problem which is similar to something called Meniere's disease which can have significant impact on your health. As it happens, I have never had another attack.

OshayAway

Tykelass wrote: »

Prior to taking these policies out, I had had a similar policy before and the provider put a restriction on barring any claims for anything to do with my ears. This was because I'd had 2 attacks of an inner ear problem which is similar to something called Meniere's disease which can have significant impact on your health. As it happens, I have never had another attack.

That would likely attract a deafness exclusion. I don't have any experience with retrospective disclosures but someone else on here might. My guess would be that disclosing it now would simply result in amended terms to include such an exclusion -that's not very good english but you get my meaning.

JDC14

I don't think I've ever come across "menieres" or any other inner ear attack (apart from when my Dad was suspected of something similar).

I've also not had much experience with retrospective disclosure, and the few times I have, the longest has been 15 weeks, far from 10 years.

The non-disclosure though, bad decision from the IFA imo, as I assume it's recorded on your medical records? Meaning if your policy were referred for a GP report for any reason - it would've been found.


In terms of reviewing your policies. I'd consider your needs currently;

- Mortgage? How much is left? (Repayment or Interest only)
- Other debts?
- Funeral Cover
- Any Kids/Partner/Dependents to protect?


They're not questions you need to answer for us but something you'll need to consider when undertaking a new policy.

Then compare what's available to what you've already got in place. Also, make sure your IFA hasn't gone through a broker who's going to charge you a ridiculous cancellation fee.

FLAPJACK

I can't stress enough how important at least PHI is, i had a stroke at 49 and was swiftly shown the door from work, albeit with a ill-health pension.

It was comforting to knpw that to start unexpected retirement at least my income (although reduced) was not so bad, it would have been but for the PHI as the pension would have been sucked up by bills ect.

Now the PHI has ended the pension has increased over the years so that it is worth more now as the PHI helped pay off debts before it ended.

We are all dubious about insurance but PHI (which is the only one in your case I can talk about) is well worth the outlay I found.

Put it this way I got almost 4 times payout from PHI than I paid in via monthly payments.

kingstreet

Back to the disclosure issue.

An advisor should ensure the applicant completes the application honestly and truthfully and should not suggest what is, or isn't, important to an underwriter.

This is a great reason for insurers to move over to tele-underwriting IMHO.