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

General_Grant

Adding his mother cost him nothing.
She apparently did the work of making the claim.
She would have had the benefit of the private healthcare and so should receive the insurance monies - but share with him for having had the policy in the first place and which would then pay for his future subscriptions for some time to come.

Pollycat

WeePet said:

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.

Do you have personal experience of being a health policy holder and your wife making a claim on the policy under your name?

mobenaribia

The fact that the Son is paying for an insurance policy which includes family members is in itself a blessing.  Who knows how long his mother may have waited for treatment otherwise,  albeit within NHS hospital.  His mum kindly dealt with the administration side of things to ensure the payout was made.  I believe a nice meal out, flowers, chocolates etc is well deserved but as a mum myself,  I wouldn't expect anymore.  The son is paying for the policy and deserves recompense. 

JessieH_2

I agree with the previous comment that if her son suggested to his mother that she claim, then morally, it would be right for him to share, preferably 50/50. Their respective incomes might also have a bearing on this, one might assume he is fairly well off if he can afford private healthcare, what is his mother's income? Is she comfortably off or on a much lower limited income, and possibly need the money? Assuming he suggested she claim, did he give her to understand he would share the proceeds? If he did, then he should do so, regardless of legal rights. His mother should be able to trust the word of her own son! If his mother claimed without him knowing (which seems extremely unlikely as how would she know the address etc) then the least he could do, is treat her to something nice like flowers/lunch/theatre etc. After all, she did not benefit from his health insurance policy in any way. She merely had the inconvenience of making a claim for his benefit. Without his insurance she would still have been in the same NHS hospital getting the same treatment.  

Jounrich

He pays for the health care package so I can’t think why his mum thinks she’s entitled to the payout. 

Mandy43

As the policyholder the money is his, no question. £200 a month is a lot of money, that insurance payout will help cover continuing premiums. But I wonder what your interest is here? Reading between the lines I’m assuming the OP is Dad, and that the responses here will be shown to the parties who are actually involved in order to pressure son into handing over the money to Mum. Are you expecting to benefit financially from any money given to your wife/ex? Are you upset that you aren’t on the policy as well? I would respectfully suggest that this really doesn’t have anything to do with you, it’s between your son and his Mum. If they are both happy with the situation why cause trouble?

JayD

Nothing to add to the above re money legally being his but I wonder why you ant to bring the issue here, rather than talk to your son about how you feel about the situation ...

Pollycat

JayD said:

Nothing to add to the above re money legally being his but I wonder why you ant to bring the issue here, rather than talk to your son about how you feel about the situation ...

It's the same with virtually every MMD.
So little information that I can't see what the originator of the MMD gets out of it - it's certainly not a unanimous opinion.

And yes, talking with the person/people concerned would be better rather than random strangers on t'interweb.

WeePet

I do not have experience of health insurance but my experience of other insurances leads me to believe that the mother was an insured person who suffered an insured event and is due compensation per the table of defined payments.  In this case a payment of £100 per night for being treated in an NHS hospital.  The payment due is for an insured person being in an NHS hospital it is not a refund of premiums for a non-provision of private care.

I still suggest 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. 

A number of contributors have suggested that a private consultation may/likely have accelerated the mother's admission to hospital.  However, an in patient stay of 12 nights to resolve the mother's issue suggests that the mother's leg was severely infected and a consultation with her NHS GP may have resulted in a hospital admission in the same timescale.

The above (like most contributions) deals in ifs, buts and maybes.  It would be helpful if the father could have clarified some of the assumptions that have been made in trying to respond to his dilemma.

Pollycat

WeePet said:

I do not have experience of health insurance but my experience of other insurances leads me to believe that the mother was an insured person who suffered an insured event and is due compensation per the table of defined payments.  In this case a payment of £100 per night for being treated in an NHS hospital.  The payment due is for an insured person being in an NHS hospital it is not a refund of premiums for a non-provision of private care.

I still suggest 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. 

A number of contributors have suggested that a private consultation may/likely have accelerated the mother's admission to hospital.  However, an in patient stay of 12 nights to resolve the mother's issue suggests that the mother's leg was severely infected and a consultation with her NHS GP may have resulted in a hospital admission in the same timescale.

The above (like most contributions) deals in ifs, buts and maybes.  It would be helpful if the father could have clarified some of the assumptions that have been made in trying to respond to his dilemma.

It's a guessing game.
Deliberately shortened from the account submitted by the originator of the MMD by the MSE team.

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value.