Money Moral Dilemma: Should my son share insurance payout from his mother's hospital stay with her?

ChickyB19

He was paying £200 per month for himself and his mother was added for free. So in effect he wasn’t actually paying for her directly, If she hadn’t needed the treatment for her leg, then he wouldn’t have received anything at all. So I believe he should share the payout and give her half the money. It would go some way to compensate her for the pain and suffering, which in effect he himself has benefitted from. 

WeePet

Firstly, the son is 100% wrong. 

We all agree the mother is insured under the policy.

We all agree the mother suffered an insurable event.

We all agree the mother was in hospital.

We all agree the mother completed the paperwork.

We all agree the son pays the premiums.  However, this is irrelevant to the circumstances of the insured event.  It is doubly irrelevant when you consider the mother is included for free and therefore the son incurs no additional premiums for his mother’s inclusion. 

It is unlikely that the policy states that the main policy holder will receive all benefits/compensation payments due under the policy.  The most likely scenario is that when the mother completed the paperwork for her suffering an insurable event she included her son’s details to receive the payment when she could have included her own details.  It is most likely that the mother ceded HER compensation payment to her son. 

You have to ask whether the son included his mother in the policy for her benefit or his own as it appears that the first time the mother could benefit from being included in the policy the son is retaining his mother’s financial payout. 

If the mother did not provide her son’s details for payment in the claim form she is entitled to write to the insurance company informing them that she still awaits HER compensation payment.

Pollycat

WeePet said:

Firstly, the son is 100% wrong. 

We all agree the mother is insured under the policy.

We all agree the mother suffered an insurable event.

We all agree the mother was in hospital.

We all agree the mother completed the paperwork.

We all agree the son pays the premiums.  However, this is irrelevant to the circumstances of the insured event.  It is doubly irrelevant when you consider the mother is included for free and therefore the son incurs no additional premiums for his mother’s inclusion. 

It is unlikely that the policy states that the main policy holder will receive all benefits/compensation payments due under the policy.  The most likely scenario is that when the mother completed the paperwork for her suffering an insurable event she included her son’s details to receive the payment when she could have included her own details.  It is most likely that the mother ceded HER compensation payment to her son. 

You have to ask whether the son included his mother in the policy for her benefit or his own as it appears that the first time the mother could benefit from being included in the policy the son is retaining his mother’s financial payout. 

If the mother did not provide her son’s details for payment in the claim form she is entitled to write to the insurance company informing them that she still awaits HER compensation payment.

I ask 'why' to both questions in bold.

Why wouldn't a company send payment to the policy holder?

I disagree that she is entitled to write to the company to say she is still waiting for HER payout.
The policy holder has received the payout on HIS policy.

Exodi

Kijjo said:

the mother who had to endure 12 days in an NHS hospital

Oh come on, you make it sound like she was in a detention camp on Guantanamo Bay.

WeePet said:

Firstly, the son is 100% wrong. 

We all agree the mother is insured under the policy.

We all agree the mother suffered an insurable event.

We all agree the mother was in hospital.

We all agree the mother completed the paperwork.

We all agree the son pays the premiums.  However, this is irrelevant to the circumstances of the insured event.  It is doubly irrelevant when you consider the mother is included for free and therefore the son incurs no additional premiums for his mother’s inclusion. 

It is unlikely that the policy states that the main policy holder will receive all benefits/compensation payments due under the policy.  The most likely scenario is that when the mother completed the paperwork for her suffering an insurable event she included her son’s details to receive the payment when she could have included her own details.  It is most likely that the mother ceded HER compensation payment to her son. 

You have to ask whether the son included his mother in the policy for her benefit or his own as it appears that the first time the mother could benefit from being included in the policy the son is retaining his mother’s financial payout. 

If the mother did not provide her son’s details for payment in the claim form she is entitled to write to the insurance company informing them that she still awaits HER compensation payment.

You speak as if everything you say is fact. We get that (you think) the son is 100% wrong, but don't get carried away. It's not clear how you can conclude the son only included the mother for his benefit, when the typical position is that the mother would receive private treatment.

Could you also provide a source that "she is entitled to write to the insurance company informing them that she still awaits HER compensation payment."?

Bunnytops

His policy and his monthly bill, he should keep it, the mother potentially benefits from private treatment if available so its a bonus.

Nico60

As the son pays, I think he should keep it. By having his mother on the policy, she probably jumped the NHS queue anyway, which would be a bonus for her and her health. This payout will cover his next six months, and her hospital if she needs to go in again.

Shortlands_Shopper

Sounds like he his mother should have asked first and discussed with him, then maybe they could have agreed to split it. As he is probably a tax payer and maybe had policy through work he is being taxed as a benefit in kind so this would contribute towards that. Nothing in life is free where medical care applies. 

gorgeousgirlie

Hang on, who wrote this dilemma? 'My son' added 'his mother' to his policy?! So this is Dad asking the question?
Is he on the policy too?!
Perhaps he should leave mother and son to sort it out themselves!🤷🏼‍♀️

luckbox

The mum has likely got far more than £1200 in value from the son already as she has free private healthcare. How much more does she want? 

WeePet

Look at this another way.  If this was a travel policy and the mother lost a piece of jewellery on holiday to whom would the compensation be due?  I would hope we agree the mother is due as she suffered the loss.  The current health insurance aspect is no different, the mother suffered the insurable event and is due the compensation.
In reply to Pollycat and Exodi: you asked why wouldn't the company send payment to the policy holder.  Because the policy holder did not suffer the insurable event.  All people included in an insurance policy are covered equally, all can make a claim and all are due their compensation, the compensation in this instance is for the mother being hospitalised.
I have personal experience of being the (travel) policy holder and my wife having to engage in protracted correspondence with a company before it recompensed her.  As soon as the initial claim was lodged all contact was direct with my wife, as she was the claimant and the payment was made to her, my position as policy holder was irrelevant.  In the current case the mother is the claimant.  I accept insurance companies can have different practices but I stand by my position that the compensation is due to the mother.
Everything in my previous post was not fact.  I did identify some assumptions which included "It is unlikely that the policy states that the main policy holder will receive all benefits/compensation payments."  The question (it quite clearly was not a conclusion) about including the mother for the son's benefit was possibly OTT but the principle stands.