The judgment described in the the document at this link (on the Ministry of Justice register of Judicial Decisions Online) makes interesting, if somewhat depressing reading, if you care about financial advice in New Zealand. There are so many questions that could be asked it is hard to know where to start.
Why was initial commission payable on this case in the first place?
Are the provisions for keeping a policy in-force too generous or the provisions for reinstating a policy without medical evidence too generous, given the confusion that so many different letters and reports caused?
Was this one of those cases where the claimant's judgment was so clouded by their own needs that they forgot their experience? Or was their view that AMP should genuinely pay the claim?