Most specialist advisors would concurthat Financial Protection Insurance is fundamental to the majority of families, either as a safeguard in the event of premature death, prolonged illness, loss of employment (especially in the present economic climate), or cover for an accident.
Life Insurance Policies is the foundation of all financial assurance for cover for a mortgage or to ensure a lump sum that is not taxable, in the eventuality of death. Sadly, a proportion of other Protection Insurance types, do not do not have equivalentdo not have similar} reputable qualities and have been branded as being miss-sold. furthermore, based on what we are now aware, critical illness cover has suffered due to astonishing exclusions from policies making it feasible for insurers to reject claims even when they are genuine.
However, a little confidence was reinstated when Standard Life gave details on the conclusion of claims on Critical Illness Cover on their half yearly accounts.
Critical Illness Insurance claims were being turned down because people did not disclose their full health record. As a result Aviva reports that in the last seven months the number of rejected claims has fallen considerably from 6.7 per cent in the last year, to 1.6%.
Why? We think, not simply Legal and General but all insurance companies, because of negative public relations, have been placed in a situation whereby they must diminish the amount of claims that are rejected. Does this show how influential the press can be? Debateable perhaps - you may think we are dubious but we think there are other factors that urged the insurers to make modifications. Lately, as a result of |bad press|dire media}, sales of Critical Illness policies have fallen which in turn has obviously affected the insurers profit. This is most likely to have been the vehicle to further change!
Axa, Friends Provident, Norwich Union and Scottish Provident have initiated some major alterations specifically designed to diminish their rejection rates. To begin with, they outline clearly that all health disclosure, however insignificant a visit to a Doctor could have been, must be revealed. Axa, amongst others will get a medically trained person to phone every applicant to go through all the details of their medical history. If the policy then goes on risk, some policyholders are being reminded that it is essential that they provide complete health disclosure and they are allowed to add or correct any information on their application.
The insurer may then re-evaluate the risk and if it is believed to be increased the monthly premium will likely be raised – which seems more reasonable and ultimately more satisfactory than paying the original premium then having a claim rejected due to non-disclosure of medical facts.
This action should have been applied by the insurers a long time ago as the public’s understanding of Protection Insurance has eroded by their somewhat eccentric approach. Without doubt, there is a clear and necessary need for protection insurance so we can hope that it manages to re-establish trust and then the popularity it rightfully merits.