refused life insurance for being too fat :(

rimme

...:o:o:o:o:o:o

dunstonh

No need to be embarrassed. Although I understand it is awkward as I am thinking carefully how to word my reply as well as to not offend.

At that height/weight ratio you are a long way over the accepted limit for standard terms. All insurance companies are either going to refuse cover or offer non-standard terms at higher premiums.

At that weight, statistically, you are likely to die much younger than someone half your weight (which is roughly the right weight for your height). That is how the insurance companies view it. If you have critical illness included on the policy then you are really very high risk and they may refuse it outright or significantly increase your premiums so its not really affordable.

Insurance company look at stats and probability. Its nothing personal.

lilac_lady

When I worked in the life assurance industry I dealt with proposal forms. Men lied about their height, women lied about their weight and both sexes lied about how much they smoked if they were smokers. They were found out if they had to go to medical before being accepted/rejected. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me will be able to point you in the right direction. Good luck.

[Deleted User]

Hi rimme
Believe me you have my sympathies, my only suggestion would be to talk to a Financial Advisor, who may be able to investigate companies that may offer cover - its not even something that could be excluded I guess, because it isn't isolated.

I hope you manage to get something sorted out.
Becca

lisyloo

which obviously i have to have

Well lets's just step back a bit.

Why do you think you need it?
Have you been told you MUST have it to get the mortgage? (or perhaps that has been implied by a keen sales person).
Do you have dependents or a partner?
Do you have any private pension funds being built up?
Do you get "death in service" benefits from your employer?

I'm not saying you don't need it, but I think we have to establish whether you do or not.

By all medical and insurance statistics you are outside of the norm (I'm not judging just stating the facts).
I have a large partner and my experience is that you will find it very hard to get insurance.

dunstonh

Unfortunately, with weight, you cannot exclude things as it has too many things that can reduce life expectancy.

An IFA would be able to phone round the various underwriters to see how they would consider the application. However, the same outcome is likely whichever insurance company is used.

davetrousers

rimme wrote: »

im 21st and 5ft 7 in height medically there is nothing wrong with me.

Sorry to say it but you are morbidly obese, so there might not be something medically wrong at the moment but in the mid-term future there will almost certainly be. For the sake of your health you need to lose weight.

earthmother

My husband is large, and has disabilities, and we have found it impossible to get assurance for him. The best we have been advised is to wait until he turns 50 (in 12 years time) and go for one of the guaranteed acceptance plans.


As to the morbidly obese comment - we don't know how the OP is built - yes, that height/weight ratio falls into that band on the charts, but they are overly simplified, not taking into account bone density, muscle to fat ratios etc - a good example of this is, if you can remember that far back, the 'Gladiator' called Hunter, who at the peak of his career and fitness was 6'3 and 25 st - morbidly obese according to the charts, and unable to get assured.

On a more personal note - take my great gran, who at 81 was 5' nothing and skin and bone, and yet needed two paramedics to lift her when she fell, and they commented that they didn't expect her to weigh anything at all (I unfortunately inherited a combination of her genetics and my dad's height - even if I was skinny, I'd never make it out of the 'overweight' banding).


There does need to be some flexibility and less simplification in some of these cases.

dunstonh

The best we have been advised is to wait until he turns 50 (in 12 years time) and go for one of the guaranteed acceptance plans.

That wont help. They are still underwritten but at point of claim and not point of sale. Pre-exisiting conditions or things that come from a pre-existing condition will be excluded.

As to the morbidly obese comment - we don't know how the OP is built - yes, that height/weight ratio falls into that band on the charts, but they are overly simplified, not taking into account bone density, muscle to fat ratios etc - a good example of this is, if you can remember that far back, the 'Gladiator' called Hunter, who at the peak of his career and fitness was 6'3 and 25 st - morbidly obese according to the charts, and unable to get assured.

It is hard to say without knowing but the weight it about twice what it should be for that height. There is some flexibility and up to 16 stone approx at that weight would be the level without increased premium. Thats around 50% more than that height would typically suggest.

lisyloo

not taking into account bone density

I think this is a myth and has been debunked.
I have some fancy scales at home.
I'm just under 11 stone and I comprise the following........

3st 9 pounds of fat
6st 12 pounds of muscle
5.2 pounds of bones.

As you can see the bone part is very insignificant.
I'm afraid this is not a good explanation for some people being heavier than others has been debunked.
Difference is muscle/fat ratios certainly can be an explanation as muscle is heavier than fat.

the 'Gladiator' called Hunter

You could be right here, but this would normally apply to elite athletes and not "normal" people.
If this is the case then I would advise the athlete to get advice from their professional organisation.

even if I was skinny, I'd never make it out of the 'overweight' banding

I agree with you that there needs to be some statistical tolerance and I believe this already exists.
e.g. the "normal" BMI band is from 20-25 to allow for diferent "builds".
Even being slightly out I don't think your doctors would be too concerned and you would not be refused insurance (my doctors start getting concerned at 27).

Being morbidly obeise is not however explained by any normal levels of tolerance.
It's miles away from normal levels (again speaking factually and stistically not judgementally).

FairyElephant_2

Hi Rimme,

Can't offer much advice I'm afraid, but just wanted to send you my sympathy & support.

I too am 'obese' according to the stupid height/weight charts, although I am fairly tall for a woman at almost 5' 9". I know I am a bit on the large side, being a typcial pear shape & size 20 on the bottom & 18 on the top (on a good day!) but I'd challenge a lot of skinny people to match my stamina & fitness levels....I run, swim, play badminton and cross-country hike regularly.
I was recently told I needed to get my BMI down from 31 to 28 to have an operation, and when I couldn't I met the anaesthetist, who took one look at me and said 'No problem - we only worry if you are chunky around the neck 'cos that can affect your breathing when you are put out!'.

Sorry - I digressed a little there, but weight-prejudice is one of my pet-hate subjects!
If you feel that you are fit and healthy even though the 'experts' say you are obese, can you have a private medical report done?

Also, agree with lisyloo - financial 'experts' are all very keen to sell us policies which we may not really need, as that's how they make their commission, so take a look at your whole financial picture - there may be other ways in which your mortage could be cleared by your loved-ones in the event of the worst happening.

Best of luck,

FE