Abbey life misleading life assurance

financedimwit

I'm dealing with my Uncle's estate tackling DIY probate.

One part of the estate was a life assurance policy taken out in 1972 called a double protection to age 65. It says sum assured £10,000.

My Uncle told me this was worth £10,000, which when you look at the name of the policy makes sense, he died at 88 so well past the time when it was doubled.

However I discover from Abbey that it is in fact worth £5000, it isn't so much double protection to 65 as half protection after 65.

My uncle was clearly misled by the name, and he was a savvy sort of chap who did very well for himself, yet he seems to have been fooled by the title rather than the detail of the fine print which does explain it.

I feel annoyed for him, I think it is a very misleading description of a policy. Is it worth taking this up with Abbey Life?

Thanks

dunstonh

Is it worth taking this up with Abbey Life?

as you were not present at any of the meetings that took place, you cannot make any sort of allegation about what was or was not said. In scenarios like this, documentation will be examined. However, it pre-dates financial services regulation by 16 years. There will be nothing on file other than the application form and policy documents as there was no requirement for anything else back then.

Out of interest, what does the title double protection mean from your findings?

financedimwit

The double protection means it was worth £10,000 before he was 65, £5000 after he was 65. However it says sum assured £10,000.

I wasn't really expecting to get anywhere, I'm just annoyed on his behalf. He told me and his broker it was worth £10,000 so he was clear in his mind how it worked, unfortunately that wasn't how it was designed.

I think it's very misleading to call it double protection to age 65, sum assured £10,000.

agrinnall

You're not thinking straight, why would an insurer offer to pay out more to someone who dies after the age of 65 (a 100% probability for anyone who reaches 65) than for the much lower probability of dying before 65? To me, the description you give is pretty reasonable, "double protection to age 65, sum assured £10,000" means exactly what it says.

financedimwit

I think it is perfectly reasonable to pay out double before 65, what isn't reasonable is to say the sum assured is £10,000 and that you pay out double before 65.

It should either be protection halved after 65 sum assured £10,000 or protection doubled before 65 sum assured £5000.

Anything else is simply hype.